United States Office of Air Quality EPA-450/5-83-001e
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards August 1982
Agency Research Triangle Park NC 27711
_
Benefit Analysis
of Alternative
Secondary
National Ambient
Air Quality
Standards
for Sulfur Dioxide
and Total
Suspended
Particulates
Volume V
-------
-------
FINAL ANALYSIS
BENEFITS ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SECONDARY
NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR
SULFUR DIOXIDE AND TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES
VOLUME V
BENEFITS ANALYSIS PROGRAM
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS BRANCH
STRATEGIES AND AIR STANDARDS DIVISION
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
U-S- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
NORTH CAROLINA 27711
U.S. Environment Protection Agenc*j
Region v, L- >'
-------
U,S. Environmental Protection "Agency
-------
FINAL ANALYSIS
BENEFITS ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SECONDARY
NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR
SULFUR DIOXIDE AND TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES
Ernest H. Manuel, Jr.
Robert L. Horst, Jr.
Kathleen M. Brennan
By:
William N. Lanen
Marcus C. Duff
Judith K. Tapiero
With the Assistance of:
Richard M. Adams
David S. Brookshire
Thomas D. Crocker
Ralph C. d'Arge
A. Myrick Freeman, III
Shelby D. Gerking
Edwin S. Mills
William D. Schulze
MATHTECH, Inc.
P.O. Box 2392
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
EPA Contract Number 68-02-3392
Project Officer:
Allen C. Basala
Economic Analysis Branch
Strategies and Air Standards Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
August 1982
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by MATHTECH, Inc. The report is organized into six volumes
containing a total of 14 sections as follows:
Volume I
Section 1:
Section 2:
Section 3:
Volume II
Section 4:
Section 5:
Section 6:
Volume III
Sect ion 7:
Section 8:
Volume IV
Section 9:
Volume V
Section 10:
Section 11:
Volume VI
Section 12:
Section 13:
Section 14:
Executive Summary
Theory, Methods and Organization
Air Quality and Meteorological Data
Household Sector
Residential Property Market
Labor Services Market
Manufacturing Sector
Electric Utility Sector
Agricultural Sector
Extrapolations
Bibliography
Summary of the Public Meeting
Analysis of Pollutant Correlations
Summary of Manufacturing Sector Review
The analysis and conclusions presented in this report are those
of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily reflecting
the official policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report and the underlying analyses profited considerably
from the efforts of Allen Basala, who served as EPA Project Officer,
and V. Kerry Smith, who served as a reviewer for EPA. Allen provided
the initiative and on-going support to conduct an applied benefits
analysis. Kerry's technical insights and suggestions are reflected in
nearly every section of the report.
James Bain and Tom Walton of EPA, and Jan Laarman and Ray
Palmquist, who served as reviewers for EPA, also contributed
substantially to individual report sections through their advice and
comments during the course of the project. Also providing helpful
comments and assistance were Don Gillette, Fred Haynie, Neil Frank and
Larry Zaragosa, all with EPA.
Several other members of the Mathtech staff contributed to the
project during various stages of the work. They included Robert J.
Anderson, Jr., Neil Swan, John Keith, Donald Wise, Yaw Ansu, Gary
Labovich, and Janet Stotsky.
The production of the report was ably managed by Carol Rossell,
whose patience remained intact through countless drafts and deadlines.
Carol was assisted by Sally Webb, Gail Gay, and Deborah Piantoni.
Finally, we extend our appreciation to the many dozens of
individuals, too numerous to list here, who provided advice,
suggestions, and data during the course of the project.
111
-------
CONTENTS
10. EXTRAPOLATIONS
Introduction 10-1
Household Sector Extrapolations 10-2
Overview 10-4
Data Development Procedures 10-5
Estimated Household Sector Benefits 10-7
Manufacturing Sector Extrapolations 10-13
Overview 10-13
Extrapolation Procedure 10-17
Manufacturing Sector Estimated Benefits 10-21
Electric Utility Sector Extrapolations 10-27
Overview « 10-27
Other Types of Power Plants 10-27
Transmission and Distribution Systems 10-28
Summary of Extrapolations 10-34
References 10-38
11. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Part A: Economic Theory and Data 11-1
Part B: Sources of Information on Pollution 11-15
IV
-------
TABLES
Number Page
10-1. Coverage of Economic Activity in Each Sector 10-3
10-2. Household Sector Extrapolation for Current
3-Hour Secondary S02 Standard 10-8
10-3. Household Sector Extrapolation for Alternative
24-Hour Secondary S02 Standard 10-10
10-4. Household Sector Extrapolation for Current
24-Hour Secondary TSP Standard 10-12
10-5. Industries Included in the Extrapolations 10-18
10-6. Manufacturing Sector Extrapolation for Current
3-Hour Secondary S02 Standard 10-22
10-7. Manufacturing Sector Extrapolation for Alternative
24-Hour Secondary S02 Standard 10-23
10-8. Manufacturing Sector Extrapolation for Current
24-Hour Secondary TSP Standard 10-24
10-9. Geographic Distribution of Extrapolated Benefits
for the Manufacturing Sector 10-26
10-10. Estimated Benefits to Electric Utility
Transmission and Distribution Systems from
Attainment of the Alternative 24-Hour S02
Secondary Standard 10-33
10-11. Estimated Benefits in Sectors Analyzed for
Current S02 Secondary Standard 10-35
10-12. Estimated Benefits in Sectors Analyzed for
Alternative S02 Secondary Standard 10-36
10-13. Estimated Benefits in Sectors Analyzed for
Current TSP Secondary Standard 10-37
-------
SECTION 10
EXTRAPOLATIONS
-------
SECTION 10
EXTRAPOLATIONS*
INTRODUCTION
The previous sections of this report have estimated the economic
benefits of alternative secondary ambient air quality standards for
the household, manufacturing, electric utility, and agricultural
sectors. However, the estimates obtained in each of the sectors
represent only a partial accounting of total benefits. In each of the
analyses, data limitations or methodological considerations prevented
the enumeration of a complete set of national benefits. For example,
in the household sector, the geographic coverage was limited to 24
SMSAs and economic data were available for only about 40 percent of
current consumption expenditures. Similarly, the analysis in the
manufacturing sector covered only six industries, with these
industries accounting for about 8 percent of the value added in that
sector. In order to broaden the scope of the analysis, this section
provides a limited extrapolation of the results of the basic analysis.
* Sections 1 and 2 of the report should be read before tnis section.
An understanding of Sections 3, 4, 7 and 8 would also be desirable,
but it is not as essential.
10-1
-------
Table 10-1 summarizes the basic scope of the study. Note that in
addition to limited coverage of the sectors analyzed in this study,
there are several sectors which were not covered at all. Furthermore,
consideration of benefit types is restricted to vegetation and
materials damage and soiling. Since the extrapolations reported in
this section are limited to extended coverage of the sectors and
benefit types analyzed in the basic study, the benefits reported
represent conservative estimates of the benefits associated with
attainment of the secondary ambient air quality standards.
The remaining subsections review the extrapolation procedures and
report extrapolated benefits for the household, manufacturing, and
electric utility sectors. For reasons given in Section 9, no
extrapolations were attempted in the agricultural sector.
HOUSEHOLD SECTOR EXTRAPOLATIONS
The basic analysis in the household sector is limited to 24
SMSAs, with these SMSAs accounting for approximately 30 percent of the
total U.S. population in 1976. This subsection estimates the benefits
that would be realized by other areas of the country, given attainment
of the secondary standards for TSP and SO«
10-2
-------
TABLE 10-1. COVERAGE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN EACH SECTOR
Final demand sector
Households*
Government
Other
Totals
. _3 ,
rrooucing sector
Percent of
final demand
63.5
20.5
16.0
100.0
T"} v** *- *-*-C
Fercent or
GNP
Percent
Basic
analysis
17
0
_£
11**
Percent
Basic
analysis
coverage
Basic plus
extrapolation
45-55
0
0
29-35**
coverage
Basic plus
extrapolation
Agriculture, forestry
and fisheries
Mining and
construction
Manufacturing
Transportation,
communication and
utilities
Commercial and
services
Government and other
Totals
3.1
7.1
23.9
9.0
43.6
2-15
0
4-8
8-11
2-15
0
25-30
15-20
* Goods and services consumed by individuals and certain nonprofit
institutions. Includes rental of dwellings but not purchases of
dwellings. The latter are included with "other".
**
Weighted average coverage.
Source: Estimates of final demand and GNP shares are from U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Survey
of Current Business. July 1979. Tables 1.1 and 6.1.
10-3
-------
Overview
In the basic household sector analysis (see Section 4), benefits
are calculated in a two-stage procedure. In the first stage, price
data for marketed goods such as laundry and cleaning supplies,
together with data on air quality, climate, and household
demographics, are used to calculate the implicit prices for "final"
goods and services such as "household operations." In the second
stage, the implicit prices are used to calculate the allocation of
household expenditures among the various final goods and services. In
this formulation, the effect of an air quality improvement is to
reduce some of the implicit prices and therefore induce a reallocation
of household expenditures. Benefits are then estimated by calculating
the compensating variation (CV) associated with the expenditure
reallocation.*
In extrapolating beyond the original 24 SMSAs, the same procedure
as described above is used. However, some of the required
demographic, climate, and market price data are not available for the
counties outside of the original SMSAs. Thus, approximate data are
used instead, together with actual air quality data. For the
demographic and climate data, regional averages are used. For the
* The compensating variation (CV) is a measure of the compensation
required such that the consumer is indifferent between the original
price set and the new price set.
10-4
-------
price data, two alternative approaches are used since benefits are
especially sensitive to price: regional average prices, and the
highest and lowest price sets from among the original SMSAs (where
high and low are measured in terms of effect on benefits). The
specific data development procedures are described more fully below.
Note that this extrapolation procedure assumes that the implicit
price and expenditure models developed in the basic analysis are also
appropriate for other parts of the country. This does not seem
unreasonable since the original 24 SMSAs were quite varied. Note
also, however, that by using the models developed in the basic
analysis, the scope of the extrapolation is limited to those benefit
types included in that analysis. Consequently, since such benefits as
visibility improvement and ecosystem protection were neglected there,
the extrapolated benefits in the household sector continue to
represent conservative estimates of the benefits associated with
attainment of the secondary standards.
Data Development Procedures
The geographic extrapolations reported here are done on a county-
by-county basis. Counties included within the boundaries of the
original 24 SMSAs were excluded from the extrapolation procedures.
The specific assumptions made in performing the extrapolation include:
10-5
-------
Certain data are assigned to counties based on the
region in which the county is located. In particular,
the following steps were taken:
The country is divided into two major areas
Northeast plus North Central and South plus West.
Averages by region are computed from the SMSA-
specific data for the following items:
a) 30-year average temperature.
b) family size
c) average annual percent change in the all-item
consumer price index.
d) average percent of total consumption expendi-
tures in the SMSA data.
e) disaggregate and aggregate price sets
developed for the basic analysis.
Certain data are assigned to counties based on county-
or state-level data. These data include:
Air quality data obtained from the SAROAD data
base (1978 statistics) on a site-by-site basis and
aggregated to the county-level by the procedures
described in Section 3.
Baseline county population numbers obtained from
the County and City Data Book, 1977 (1). These
are 1975 statistics. Conversions to household
data are made by dividing by the regional family
size values.
Population projections by county developed by
calculating the annual percent change in
population by county between 1970 and 1975. These
data are obtained from the County and City Data
Book, 1977 (1). The annual changes are assumed to
be maintained at the same rate into the future.
State income projections for 1985 and 1990
(current 1972 dollars) obtained from the
Department of Commerce News, December 9, 1980 (2).
The annual percent changes in income implied by
the data described above are computed for each
state. These annual changes are assumed to hold
into the future.
10-6
-------
Certain data or assumptions are pertinent to all
counties. These include:
The parameters of the various demand equations
estimated in Section 4.
The air quality scenario developed for the
benefits calculations remains the same as before.
Benefits are calculated as discounted present
values in 1980, in 1980 dollars. A social rate of
discount of 10 percent and an infinite time
horizon are assumed.
Estimated Household Sector Benefits
Given the extrapolation scenario described above, household sector
benefits were calculated on a county-by-county basis for each
pollutant and then aggregated to Census Divisions.
Table 10-2 presents the benefits obtained in the household sector
for attainment of the current 3-hour secondary standard for S02. As
described in Section 3, it is not possible to calculate directly the
incremental benefits for the 3-hour standard since there is no primary
standard defined for the same averaging time. Consequently, for each
county, we have calculated the equivalent 24-hour concentration level
that would be expected to occur when the 3-hour standard is just met.
This 24-hour concentration level is then used as an "equivalent"
secondary standard and comparisons can be made directly with the
current 24-hour second-high primary standard.
10-7
-------
TABLE 10-2. HOUSEHOLD SECTOR EXTRAPOLATION FOR CURRENT 3-HOUR
SECONDARY S02 STANDARD* (discounted present
values for 1580 in millions of 1980 dollars)**
Census
Division Benefit estimates with average price set
1. New England
2. Mid-Atlantic
3. East North Central 1.81
4. West North Central
5. South Atlantic
6. East South Central 0.02
7. West South Central
8. Mountain 0.19
9. Pacific
U.S. total 2.02
* Current S02 secondary standard is 1,300 ug/m-3, based on a 3-hour
averaging time. Standard not to be exceeded more than once per
year.
** Discount rate of 10 percent is assumed.
Equals zero.
As Table 10-2 shows, the estimated benefits of the current 3-hour
SO- standard are small. This is in part because only soiling and
materials effects are captured by the model. It also occurs because
very few counties in the United States are out of compliance with the
equivalent secondary standard, given that the primary standard is
10-8
-------
attained. In fact, benefits for attainment of the secondary standard
are predicted to be realized in only five counties, with total
benefits of $2.02 million dollars.
In Section 3, it was noted that air pollution measures based on
longer averaging times were likely to be more appropriate for the
types of damaging effects included in our analysis. Because of this,
benefits were analyzed for an alternative secondary standard for SC>2
based on a 24-hour averaging time. For this alternative standard of
260 ug/m^ the SCU benefits are as shown in Table 10-3.
The top part of Table 10-3 reports benefits only for counties not
included in the original analysis. The range of estimates denoted by
low, average, and high price sets gives some idea of the sensitivity
of the results to assumptions concerning the assignment of prices to
counties.
The average price set is defined on a regional basis. That is,
from the original group of 24 SMSAs, average prices are calculated for
all those SMSAs in the Northeast or North Central regions to obtain an
index of prices for all counties located in these two regions. A
similar average is calculated for counties in the South and West.
The low and high price sets are obtained by finding the SMSAs,
from our group of 24, that yield the low and high marginal valuations
of air quality improvements. For example, in .order to identify the
10-9
-------
TABLE 10-3. HOUSEHOLD SECTOR EXTRAPOLATION FOR ALTERNATIVE 24-HOUR
SECONDARY S02 STANDARD* (discounted present values
for 1980 in millions of 1980 dollars)**
Census
Division
1. New England
2. Mid-Atlantic
3. East North Central
4. West North Central
5. South Atlantic
6. East South Central
7. West South Central
8 . Mountain
9. Pacific
Extrapolated U.S. total
24 SMSA total
Total U.S. benefits
Low price
set
6
24
64
1
43
21
19
178
Average price
set
6
26
69
1
41
20
18
181
920
1,101
High price
set
8
33
87
1
62
31
28
250
* Alternate SO,- secondary standard is 260 ug/m^, based on a 24-hour
averaging time. Standard not to be exceeded more than once per
year.
** Discount rate of 10 percent is assumed.
Equals zero.
"high price set" SMSA, we evaluate the predicted level of benefits per
unit change in air quality (TSP and S02) for each SMSA. This
evaluation is performed at a variety of air quality levels in order to
10-10
-------
account for changes in the marginal valuations across concentration
levels. When this analysis is performed, New York City households are
found to have the highest per-unit valuation. Thus, the price set for
New York City is assigned to each of the counties in the
extrapolation, and the benefits calculations performed. These results
are reported under the high price set column. Similar steps are
carried out to identify the low price set SMSA. In this case, Atlanta
is found to be the SMSA with the lowest marginal valuations.
On a regional basis, the largest benefits are realized in the
eastern part of the country, with the East North Central Region
accounting for almost 40 percent of extrapolated U.S. benefits.
The bottom part of Table 10-3 lists the total benefits estimated
for the original SMSAs. Because of the different types of sensitivity
checks carried out in the two sets of benefits calculations, only the
"most reasonable" values are reported from the analysis phase. These
are listed under the average price set column, and the estimate of
total U.S. benefits for SCu is recorded on the last line of the table.
The best estimate of total household sector benefits (soiling and
materials benefits) for attainment of a 24-hour averaging time
secondary standard for SO- is approximately $1.1 billion.
Table 10-4 presents extrapolations for TSP. The low, average,
and high price sets are as defined above. Since primary and secondary
air quality standards for TSP exist with the same averaging time, no
10-11
-------
TABLE 10-4. HOUSEHOLD SECTOR EXTRAPOLATION FOR CURRENT 24-HOUR
SECONDARY TSP STANDARD* (discounted present values
for 1980 in millions of 1980 dollars)**
Census
Division
1. New England
2. Mid-Atlantic
3. East North Central
4. West North Central
5. South Atlantic
6. East South Central
7. West South Central
8. Mountain
9. Pacific
Extrapolated U.S. total
24 SMSA total
Total U.S. benefits
Low price
set
64
119
220
60
58
64
60
244
297
1,186
Average price
set
72
133
245
68
63
69
67
270
344
1,331
2,299
3,630
High price
set
86
160
294
80
73
79
77
308
392
1,549
________
* Current TSP secondary standard is 150 ug/m^, based on a 24-hour
averaging time. Standard not to be exceeded more than once per
year.
** Discount rate of 10 percent is assumed.
additional transformations were required to account for alternate
averaging times.
The regional dispersion of TSP benefits is different from that
observed for SO^. In this case, the largest benefits occur in the
10-12
-------
East North Central, Mountain, and Pacific regions. Note, however,
that the other six regions realize nontrivial benefits.
As with S02, the bottom part of Table 10-4 records the benefits
calculated from the original 24 SMSAs. In this case, the best
estimate of total household sector benefits (soiling and materials
benefits) for attainment of a 24-hour averaging time secondary
standard for TSP is about $3.63 billion.
MANUFACTURING SECTOR EXTRAPOLATIONS
Overview
The basic analysis in the manufacturing sector (see Section 7) is
limited to six 3-digit SIC industries comprising about 8.3 percent of
the value added in the manufacturing sector. The analysis is done on
a county-by-county basis in each industry. The unavailability of air
quality data and economic data for those industries in many counties
of the U.S. further reduces the coverage to about 3.6 percent (i.e.,
data sets were available for counties containing about one-half the
economic value in the six industries). The possibilities for
extrapolation of the basic analysis thus included: (1) extending the
geographic coverage of the original six industries to other areas of
the country; and (2) extending coverage to other manufacturing
industries.
10-13
-------
Geographic Extrapolation
It was decided not to undertake the geographic extrapolation for
two reasons. First, although counties containing only half of the
economic value (on average) in the six industries were included in the
basic analysis, these counties are the more industrialized counties in
the U.S. Since air pollution is likely to be more severe in these
counties, and less severe in the other counties, the probability of
identifying large additional benefits in the other counties was judged
to be small.
Second, the basic analysis already included all counties for
which economic data were available. Thus, to extend the geographic
coverage to other areas, the analysis would have to be done at the
more aggregate SMSA (metropolitan area) level. A review of this
situation indicated the following: (1) single-county SMSAs would be
of no interest because those for which economic data were available
were already included in the basis analysis; and (2) for many of the
multi-county SMSAs, air quality data were not available for all of the
member counties, and thus air quality for the SMSA was not well
defined.
In view of the two reasons above the expectation of small
benefits, and the limitations of the air quality data no geographic
extrapolation for the original six industries was undertaken.
10-14
-------
Industry Extrapolation
The alternative possibility was to extrapolate the results for
the original six industries to some of the other closely related
manufacturing industries. For example, two of the industries included
in the basic analysis were SIC 344 (fabricated structural metal
products) and SIC 346 (metal forgings and stampings). Both of these
3-digit SIC industries are part of the broader 2-digit industry, SIC
34 (fabricated metal products). One might therefore take the view
that the air pollution effects identified in the two subindustries are
representative of the effects likely to be present in the broader
industry group.
The extrapolation to other industries, of course, raises two
questions. First, can the effects identified in the subindustries be
viewed as representative of the effects in the broader industry group?
Second, if so, how .should the extrapolation be carried out? The first
question cannot be answered definitively without actually conducting a
specific analysis of the other subindustries in each group. Clearly,
there are similarities among the various 3-digit industries within a
2-digit group. The similarities can include the use of common raw
materials, similar processing techniques, and most importantly, the
production of related end products. However, the industries can also
be different in important ways, and it is the latter fact which guided
the selection of an extrapolation procedure.
10-15
-------
One possible extrapolation procedure would be to apply the
estimated models for the six industries, developed in Section 7, to
data for the corresponding 2-digit industries. The models in that
section are designed to estimate the savings in production cost (e.g.,
maintenance cost) due to an improvement in air quality. However,
direct application of the models was viewed as unattractive for two
reasons. First, it requires two specific assumptions: (1) that the
underlying production technology is the same at both the 2-digit and
3-digit levels; and (2) that the effect of air pollution on that
technology is similar at both the 2-digit and 3-digit levels.
Comparisons in Section 7 between the 3-digit SIC models developed in
this study and the 2-digit SIC models developed in another study
suggest that at least the first of these assumptions may not always be
valid.
A second problem with applying the models directly is that the
models incorporate specially developed price indexes for raw materials
inputs used by the 3-digit industries. New price indexes would be
required corresponding to the different mix of input materials used by
the 2-digit industries.
In view of the above, a less formal extrapolation procedure was
adopted. It basically involves answering the following question: If
the benefits of improved air quality at the 2-digit level were the
same as at the 3-digit level in terms of the percentage savings in
production cost for a given change in air quality, how large would the
10-16
-------
benefits be? Note that this approach does not necessarily require
that the underlying production technologies be the same only that
air quality benefits, on a percentage basis, be the same. The
remainder of this subsection addresses the above question. Three
features of the extrapolation are worth noting:
Actual economic data on each 2-digit industry are
used, on a county-by-county basis.
Actual air quality data are used on a county-by-county
basis.
The sensitivity of the results to variations in the
benefits observed within each 3-digit industry are
examined.
The extrapolations are carried out for the 2-digit SIC industries
listed in Table 10-5.
Extrapolation Procedure
In the basic analysis, benefits are calculated by estimating the
savings in production costs that would result from attainment of the
secondary ambient air quality standards, as compared to attainment of
the primary standards only. This savings (benefit) is calculated for
each industry and county. It is calculated as the discounted present
value (DPV) in 1980 dollars, of all future cost savings due to the
secondary standards.
10-17
-------
II
II
II
»
!!
ii
n
ii
n
||
n
ii
n
II C
H
4J
(0
I rH
co i! a
s ii (o
o " ^
>-< n *>
HI x
EH | D
< II
n n J5
n I' ^
di ||
2 II O
EH || «"
>< in
H -H
in
w &
HT« UJ
s
EH |
II
* !!
ii ii
n
Q 1
H
Q
s I!
J n
u 1
5 '!
M n
n
CO H
s
H 1
OS II
EH
**
i ~1
Q
L ,
M
. II
7 !!
1 n
S £
a |
J 1! -o
§ I S
*
n
n
n
n
n
i
i
n
n
n
n
H
ii
n
ii
n
n
£
QJ TJ
5 T>
(0 TJ
£> (u
i
z
0)
U 'D
H Q
cn o
*
3 *8
^H *^
(0 fT3
> (B
1
z,
U 'D
M O
cn u
*
0 rH
m *r
in
products
product
r1
4J ^4
(0 -H
S Q
r^ CN
O 0
(N CN
V£>
m
ro
I
'S
^J
s
H
J^
1
1
O
CN
VO
rn
in
>lj
o
2
c
fy
in
H
(0
4J
s
^4
fl)
TO
0.
m
CN
tH
ro
i i
S
y
s
h,
8
H
f-H
rH
(0
1
o<
VO
CN
P- rH CTl
V£5 in *3-
in
4J
0
3
8
^L
in
m c
JJ -H
Q} QJ
S s^
TO ^"i
fH 4J Q
ns in cu
SJ C
5 "S 'H
U (t5 U
3 m
& in £
jJ rn
in c w
31 ?
»H t ^ F H
Jj ro ro
^2 4J 4J
fci 2 S
** vo rr
tr T in
ro ro f*^
vo r*^
CN ro
(0
U
in -H
"O 4J
3 0
iu o;
Q(
-P
rH O4
(0 0)
4J O
fli X
fc CU
TJ *
V >i
4J £i
(0 U
1 O> 3
1 rH £0
! ^ .
1 O CO
1
1 CD ZD
1 C
1 O
1 .H
1 ^ JU
I rH O
i -H Jj
1 CO D
1 0
II * U2
10-18
-------
The benefits calculated in the basic analysis are used in the
extrapolations as follows. First, the following quantities are
calculated for each county included in the basic analysis for each 3-
digit SIC:
The dollar benefits, per dollar of value added, per
unit change in air quality.
The dollar benefits, per dollar of value shipped, per
unit change in air quality.
For convenience, the first quantity above will be denoted by
where i indexes industries and j indexes counties. The second
quantity will be denoted as BVS^u. The above ratios are calculated
for each county where there are non-zero benefits; i.e., where air
quality is assumed to change as a result of the standard.
As an example, suppose the 1980 discounted present value of all
future benefits in industry i and county j is $1 million, the 1972
(base year) value added in the corresponding industry and county is
$10 million, and the air quality change due to the secondary standard
is 50 Mg/m measured as a 24-hour average. In this case
BVAij = (1)/(10)/(50) = 0.002
Calculations are made for both value added and value of shipments
since both are alternative measures of economic activity, and thus
alternative bases for extrapolation.
10-19
-------
As a result of the above calculations, six ratios are developed
for each 3-digit industry: the minimum, maximum, and average values
of BVA^, over all counties, and the corresponding ratios for BVS- -.
The minimums and maximums are calculated, as well as the averages, in
order to assess the sensitivity of the estimates.
The second step in the extrapolation procedure was to assemble
data on the value added and value of shipments in each county for each
of the four 2-digit industries. Data for 1972 were used in order to
provide consistent scaling with the ratios above. Note that with the
use of the more aggregate 2-digit industries, data are available for
more counties than in the basic analysis based on 3-digit industries.
Hence, the industry extrapolation also accomplishes some geographic
extrapolation of the basic analysis.
Also collected for each county was the air quality data for S02
and TSP in 1978. As in the basic analysis, data for 1978 were used as
the base year in describing the scenario for attainment of the
secondary standard (see Section 7).
The third step in the calculation was to multiply the ratios by
the appropriate measures of economic value and air quality change in
each county. This leads to six county-by-county estimates of the
discounted present value of benefits in each industry -- six
corresponding to the six different ratios.
10-20
-------
In the two 2-digit industries where more than one 3-digit
industry was available as the basis for extrapolation (SlCs 20 and
34), a weighted average of the benefits for each 3-digit industry was
used in estimating the benefits for the corresponding 2-digit
industry. The weights used were value added or value of shipments,
depending on which ratio was under consideration. In SIC 201, air
pollution effects were not statistically significant at the 10 percent
level (see Section 7). Thus, in SIC 20, a weighted average of zero
and SIC 202 benefits was used. In SIC 344, air pollution effects were
occasionally significant but not in the final model (nor at all in SIC
346). The calculation for SIC 34 is based on a weighted average of
zero and SIC 344 benefits, but in intended to be primarily
illustrative.
Manufacturing Sector Estimated Benefits
When the county-by-county benefits, calculated as described
above, are added up, the national estimates shown in Tables 10-6
through 10-8 result. Table 10-6 presents estimates for the current 3-
hour SC>2 secondary standard. Table 10-7 contains estimates for the
alternative 24-hour S02 secondary standard. Estimates for the current
24-hour TSP secondary standard are in Table 10-8. In each table,
estimates are shown for each of the six ratios the minimum,
maximum, and average ratio based on value added, and similarly for
value of shipments. All estimates are 1980 discounted present values,
in 1980 dollars, using a 10 percent discount rate. Note that the
10-21
-------
TABLE 10-6. MANUFACTURING SECTOR EXTRAPOLATION FOR CURRENT 3-HOUR
SECONDARY S02 STANDARD* (discounted present values
for 1980 in million of 1980 dollars)**
Basis for extrapolation
SIC Value added Value of shipments
Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum
ratio ratio ratio ratio ratio ratio
20 7.3 11.1 25.6 6.1 6.4 6.7
26 _____
35 _____
* Current S0 secondary standard is 1,300 Mg/m , based on a 3-hour
averaging time. Standard not to be exceeded more than once per
year.
** Discount rate of 10 percent is assumed.
Equals zero.
10-22
-------
TABLE 10-7. MANUFACTURING SECTOR EXTRAPOLATION FOR ALTERNATIVE
24-HOUR SECONDARY S02 STANDARD* (discounted present
values for 1980 in million of 1980 dollars)**
Basis for extrapolation
SIC
20
26
34
35
Value added
Minimum
ratio
1,860
307
__
Average
ratio
2,820
343
j
Maximum
ratio
6,537
393
__
Value of shipments
Minimum
ratio
1,479
314
_i
Average
ratio
1,558
354
_UL
Max imum
ratio
1,622
393
w_
* Alternate S02 secondary standard is 260 Mg/m , based on a 24-hour
averaging time. Standard not to be exceeded more than once per
year.
** Discount rate of 10 percent is assumed.
Equals zero.
10-23
-------
TABLE 10-8. MANUFACTURING SECTOR EXTRAPOLATION FOR CURRENT 24-HOUR
SECONDARY TSP STANDARD* (discounted present values for
1980 in million of 1980 dollars)**
Basis for extrapolation
SIC
20
26
34+
Minimum
ratio
6,511
35 2,707
== === =
Value added
Average
ratio
10,148
6,788
____________
Maximum
ratio
19,051
10,253
_________
Value
Minimum
ratio
7,156
3,539
of shipments
Average
ratio
.
9,307
8,029
Maximum
ratio
11,495
11,798
= S ==
* Current TSP secondary standard is 150 ug/m , based on a 24-hour
averaging time. Standard not to be exceeded more than once per
year.
** Discount rate of 10 percent is assumed.
+ Illustrative calculations based on SIC 344 benefits.
Equals zero.
estimates are inclusive of the benefits for the six 3-digit
industries.
As shown in Table 10-6, benefits for the current 3-hour SO-
secondary standard are predicted to arise in only one industry, SIC
20, and be very small. This is because so few counties are out of
compliance with this standard. It is for this same reason that no
benefits are predicted to arise in SIC 26. For SICs 34 and 35 the
10-24
-------
effect of S02 was not found to be statistically significant in the
basic analysis (for SICs 344, 346, and 354) and thus no benefits are
estimated.
In Table 10-7, estimated benefits for the alternative 24-hour S02
standard are presented. In this case, because many more counties are
out of compliance, benefits are considerably larger.
Estimated benefits for the current 24-hour TSP standard are shown
in Table 10-8. In SICs 20 and 26, the effect of TSP was not found to
be statistically significant in the basic analysis (for SICs 201, 202,
and 265). Hence no benefits arise in these industries. Large
benefits are estimated for SIC 34 and SIC 35, however. Recall that
these are 1980 discounted present values over an infinite time
horizon. For comparison purposes, the discounted present values of
future shipments in these two industries are estimated to be
approximately $1 trillion and $1.3 trillion, respectively. Thus,
benefits are approximately 0.9 percent and 0.6 percent of value
shipped, respectively, when estimated using the "average" ratio for
value of shipments.
The geographic distribution of estimated benefits is shown in
Table 10-9. Entries are included for those industries, pollutants and
standards with non-zero benefits. Estimates are shown for the
extrapolation based on the "average" ratio for value of shipments.
10-25
-------
TABLE 10-9.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF EXTRAPOLATED BENEFITS
FOR THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR (discounted present
values for 1980 in millions of 1980 dollars)*
Current 3-houi
S02 standard
SIC
20
New England
Mid-Atlantic
East North Central 6
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
U.S. totals 6
««»-
: Alternate
S02 star
SIC
20
5
497
808
67
15
134
33
1,558
:============:
- = __________
2 4 -hour Current 't
idard TSP star
SIC SIC
26 34**
75 417
134 1,359
134 4,654
10 475
144
304
452
162
1,341
354 9,307
==========:=========:=
> 4 -hour
idard
SIC
35
20
970
3,755
367
15
163
120
659
1,959
8,029
* Using a discount rate of 10 percent and the "average" ratio for value
of shipments. Details may not add to totals due to independent round-
off errors.
** Illustrative calculations based on SIC 344 benefits.
Equals zero.
10-26
-------
ELECTRIC UTILITY SECTOR EXTRAPOLATIONS
Overview
The basic analysis for the electric utility sector (see Section
8) was concerned with the effects of air pollution (e.g., corrosion)
on the maintenance and operating costs for privately-owned, fossil
fuel-fired, steam-electric generating plants. Not considered in that
analysis were the effects on other types of generating plants, or on
transmission and distribution systems. These other effects are
considered in this section.
Other Types of Power Plants
The basic analysis found that fossil steam-electric power plants
in polluted areas experience higher maintenance costs than power
plants in cleaner areas, after statistically controlling for other
sources of cost variation. This effect was associated with S02
pollution but not TSP.
Based on the above finding, the benefits of attaining compliance
with the alternative 24-hour S02 secondary standard were estimated.*
Benefits totaling $55.8 million, in the form of cost savings for
fossil steam-electric plants, were identified in 22 counties. This
No benefits were found for the current 3-hour S02 secondary
standard.
10-27
-------
figure is the 1980 discounted present value of all future benefits, at
a 10 percent discount rate.
In the above counties, fossil steam-electric power plants
accounted for 79 percent of the installed generating capacity. Within
these counties there were also gas turbine, hydroelectric, and
gas/steam turbine plants. A detailed analysis of the maintenance
costs of these other plants was not undertaken, in view of the fact
that the additional benefits to these plants were likely to be small.
Instead, the following rough calculation was made.
If we assume that the total benefits in these counties are
proportional to installed capacity (i.e., benefits to other generating
plants are comparable to those for fossil steam plants), then the
additional benefits to the other plants can be calculated as
55.8/0.8 - 55.8 = $14.0 million.
Note that this is based on a rather strong assumption, but in view of
the small magnitude, a more specific analysis did not seem warranted.
Transmission and Distribution Systems
As noted in Sections 2 and 8, data limitations make a statistical
analysis of air pollution effects on transmission and distribution
systems difficult. Individual system components, such as transmission
10-28
-------
towers, can and have been studied statistically (see Section 8 for
references). However, the overall systems are for the most part so
geographically dispersed that the appropriate matching with air
quality data is not well-defined.
As an alternative basis for estimating benefits, an updated
version of the approach and data developed by Perl (3) was used. The
approach involves the following steps:
i) Estimate the inventory for key elements of the
transmission and distribution system in some base
year.
ii) Adjust the baseline inventory to account for growth
after the base year.
iii) Allocate the adjusted inventory among counties based
on the distribution of population.
iv) Estimate the additional unit maintenance cost as a
function of air pollution conditions.
v) Calculate benefits as the savings in maintenance
cost in each county, based on the change in air
quality as a result of achieving the secondary
standard.
Each of these steps is described below.
Baseline Inventory
Among the items considered in the study by Perl were three of
interest for the electric utility sector analysis. These included:
(1) externally mounted power transformers, (2) galvanized steel power
line transmission towers, and (3) pole line hardware. Note that the
10-29
-------
latter are also used jointly by the telephone utilities so an
adjustment for this fact is made later in the analysis. Note also
that some electricity customers may own substation equipment, and thus
external power transformers. However, utility ownership is far more
common, so the possibility of customer ownership is neglected in the
analysis.
The baseline inventory for the above items in 1970 were estimated
by Fink et al. (4) to have been as follows:
Transformers 556.63 106 ft2
Towers 194,000 towers 2,500 ft2/tower
= 485 10b ft2
Hardware 3.04 106 tons 450 ft2/ton
= 1,368 106 ft2
Growth Adjusted Inventory
In the Perl study, benefits were calculated for 1978 and the
growth in inventory between 1970 and 1978 was assumed to be at the
same rate as the growth in GNP. In this study, an estimate for 1985
is required, and the inventory growth is taken to be at the same rate
as the growth in installed electric generating capacity as forecasted
by the Department of Energy (5). The latter should be a better
indicator of the requirements for transmission and distribution
facilities. This assumption leads to adjusted inventory estimates (in
ft2) of 1,120 106, 976 106, and 2,752 106, respectively.
10-30
-------
Geographic Allocation
As in the Perl study, we assumed that the inventory was
distributed in the same manner as the population distribution. The
population distribution by county in 1975 was used, as reported in the
County and City Data Book (1).
Incremental Maintenance Cost
As in the Perl study, estimates of the additional maintenance
cost due to pollution were taken from Fink e_t al. (4). In 1970
dollars, these were
2
Transformers $0.0167 per ft per year.
2
Towers $0.0233 per ft per year.
Hardware $1.20 per pole per year/4 ft^ per pole
= $0.30 per ft2 per year.
Since poles are often jointly used by both telephone and electric
utilities, we assume that half of the pole line hardware maintenance
cost is incurred by each, thus yielding $0.15 per ft per year. To be
consistent with other parts of this study, the above costs were then
adjusted to 1980 dollars using the implicit price deflator for GNP.
The estimates above represent the difference in maintenance cost
between "clean" and "polluted" environments, neither of which was
defined in the original study by Fink. Perl converted the estimates
to cost per unit of SO^ pollution. In this study, the conversion is
made to costs per unit of SC>2 pollution. As the definition of
10-31
-------
"polluted", we used the population weighted average SC>2 concentration
in all of the counties which exceeded the primary 24-hour SC^ standard
in 1978. The weighted average was 555.64 Mg/m . As the definition
for "clean", we used the alternative 24-hour S02 secondary standard of
260
Incorporating all of the above adjustments leads to the following
estimates of incremental unit maintenance costs for electric utilities
in 1980 dollars (expressed in mills):
9 o
Transformers 0.10966 per ft per year per /*g/nr.
2 ?
Towers 0.15299 per ft per year per /*g/nr.
9 -
Hardware 0.98498 per ft per year per
Estimated Benefits
Using the above information, and actual air quality data for the
individual counties/ an estimate of benefits was calculated. For the
24-hour equivalent of the current 3-hour SCu secondary standard, the
estimated benefits were $0.057 million, all in one county in the
Mountain Census Division. For the alternative 24-hour SO2 secondary
standard, the estimated benefits were $54.2 million. Both of these
estimates are the 1980 discounted present values of all future
savings, in 1980 dollars, using a 10 percent discount rate and the
attainment scenario described in earlier sections.
10-32
-------
The above figures are "conservative estimates because they assume
no additional growth in the inventory after 1985. If, instead, the
inventory is assumed to continue to grow at the post-1985 forecasted
rate of growth in installed generating capacity reported in Reference
(5), benefits for the alternative 24-hour standard would be about 40
to 50 percent higher.
The geographic distribution of benefits is shown in Table 10-10.
As in the other sectors, benefits for SC^ are heavily concentrated in
the Mid-Atlantic and East North Central Divisions. This reflects both
the distribution of air pollution and population.
TABLE 10-10. ESTIMATED BENEFITS TO ELECTRIC UTILITY TRANSMISSION AND
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS FROM ATTAINMENT OF THE ALTERNATIVE
24-HOUR SO2 SECONDARY STANDARD* (discounted present
values for 1980 in millions of 1980 dollars)**
New England
Mid-Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
1.4
15.0
23.4
2.2
7.0
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
U.S. total
0.4
4.9
54.2
* Alternative S02 secondary standard is 260 /*g/m , based on a 24-hour
averaging time. Standard not to be exceeded more than once per
year.
** Discount rate of 10 percent is assumed.
Equals zero.
10-33
-------
SUMMARY OF EXTRAPOLATIONS "
The purpose of this section has been to expand the coverage of
the basic analysis. The basic analysis considered only four sectors
households, agriculture, manufacturing, and electric utilities
and provided only partial coverage of those sectors. In this section,
the coverage was broadened by making limited extrapolations within the
sectors included in the basic analysis.
In the household sector, the basic analysis covered 24 major
metropolitan areas. The extrapolations extended these results to
other areas of the country.
In the manufacturing sector, the basic analysis included six
industries representing 8 percent of the manufacturing sector.
Extrapolations were made to closely related industries, thus extending
coverage to about 32 percent of the sector.
The electric utility sector basic analysis considered the effects
on fossil steam-electric generation. These results were extended to
other forms of generation. Additional data and procedures led to
estimates for the transmission and distribution phases of the
industry.
For reasons described in Section 9, no extrapolations were
developed for the agricultural sector.
10-34
-------
A summary of the results for the basic analysis and the
extrapolations is provided in Tables 10-11 through 10-13. Table 10-11
includes benefits estimates for the 24-hour equivalent of the current
3-hour secondary S02 standard. Table 10-12 presents benefits for an
alternative 24-hour secondary S02 standard. Table 10-13 provides the
estimated benefits for the current 24-hour secondary TSP standard.
TABLE 10-11. ESTIMATED BENEFITS IN SECTORS ANALYZED FOR CURRENT SOo
SECONDARY STANDARD* (discounted present values for 1980
in millions of 1980 dollars)**
Basic Basic analysis
Sector analysis* with extrapolation
Households 4.6
Agricultural 0.2 0.2
Manufacturing 6.4
Electric Utilities 0.1
* Current secondary standard for S02 is 1,300 Mg/m , based on a 3-
hour averaging time. Standard not to be exceeded more than once
per year.
** Discount rate of 10 percent is assumed.
+ Estimates shown are for effects which were statistically
significant at the 10 percent level or less. Estimates would be
larger if higher significance levels are used.
Equals zero.
10-35
-------
TABLE 10-12. ESTIMATED BENEFITS IN SECTORS ANALYZED FOR ALTERNATIVE
S02 SECONDARY STANDARD* (discounted present values for
1980 in millions of 1980 dollars)**
Sector
Household
Agricultural
Manufacturing
Electric utilities
Basic
analysis+
733
22
345
56
Basic analysis
with extrapolations
1,140
22
1,912
124
* Alternate secondary standard is 260 A<-g/m , based on a 24-hour
averaging time. Standard not to be exceeded more than once per
year.
** Discount rate of 10 percent is assumed.
+ Estimates shown are for effects which were statistically
significant at the 10 percent level or less. Estimates would be
larger if higher significance levels are used.
10-36
-------
TABLE 10-13. ESTIMATED BENEFITS IN SECTORS ANALYZED FOR CURRENT TSP
SECONDARY STANDARD* (discounted present values for
1980 in millions of 1980 dollars)**
Basic Basic analysis
Sector analysis* with extrapolations
Household 1,144 2,930
Agricultural
Manufacturing 4,117 15,870
Electric utilities
* Current TSP secondary standard is 150 Mg/m , based on a 24-hour
averaging time. Standard not to be exceeded more than once per
year.
**
Discount rate of 10 percent is assumed.
+ Estimates shown are for effects which were statistically
significant at the 10 percent level or less. Estimates would be
larger if higher significance levels are used.
Equals zero.
10-37
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. County and
City Data Book - 1977. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., 1978.
2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Press
release (BEA 80-74), December 9, 1980.
3. Perl, Lewis J. Alternative Estimates of the Benefits of Sulfur
Dioxide Emissions Control. A report prepared for the National
Commission on Air Quality, Benefit Estimation Methodology Panel.
National Economic Research Associates, Inc., November 27, 1979.
4. Fink, V. W., Buttner, F. H. and W. K. Boyd. Technical Economic
Evaluation of Air-Pollution Corrosion Costs on Metals in the U.S.
(NTIS: PB 198-453). Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus,
Ohio, 1971.
5. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual
Report to Congress - 1980 (Volume 3: Forecasts). U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1981.
10-38
-------
SECTION 11
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY PART A
ECONOMIC THEORY AND DATA
Abbott, Michael and Orley Ashenfelter. Labour Supply, Commodity
Demand and the Allocation of Time. Review of Economic Studies
43 (3): 389-411, October 1976.
Adams, Richard M., D.J. Menkhaus, and K.A. Keith. An Investigation of
Alternative Risk Supply Models for Selected U.S. Crops. University of
Wyoming, Agricultural Experiment Station, January 1981.
Allen, R.G.D. Index Numbers in Theory and Practice. London,
Macmillan, 1975.
Anderson, Robert J., Jr., et al. Quantifying the Benefits to the
National Economy from Secondary Applications of NASA Technology. NASA
Contract NASW-2734. Princeton, Mathematica, Inc., 1975.
Anderson, Ronald W. Perfect Price Aggregation and Empirical Demand
Analysis. Econometrica 47:1209-1230, 1979.
Atkinson, Scott E. and Robert Halvorsen. Interfuel Substitution in
Steam Electric Power Generation. Journal of Political Economy 84:959-
978, 1976.
Barten, Anton. Maximum Likelihood Estimation of a Complete System of
Demand Equations. European Economic Review 1:7-73, 1969.
. The Systems of Consumer Demand Functions Approach: A Review.
Econometrica 45:23-52, 1977.
Baumes, Harry S., Jr. and W.H. Meyers. The Crops Model: Structural
Equations, Definitions, and Selected Impact Multipliers. National
Economics Division, Economics, Statistics and Cooperative Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture. March 1980.
Baumol, William J. and Wallace E. Oates. The Theory of Environmental
Policy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1975.
Berndt, Ernst R. and Laurits R. Christensen. The Translog Function
and the Substitution of Equipment, Structures and Labor in U.S.
Manufacturing, 1929-1968. Journal of Econometrics 1:81-114, 1973.
11-1
-------
and Mohammed S. Khaled. Parametric Productivity Measurement and
Choice Among Flexible Functional Forms. Journal of Political Economy
87:1220-1245, 1979.
and N.E. Savin. Conflict Among Criteria for Testing Hypotheses
in the Multivariate Linear Regression Model. Econometrica 45(5):1263-
1278, 1977.
and David 0. Wood. Technology, Prices, and the Derived Demand
for Energy. Review of Economics and Statistics 57:259-268, 1975.
, Melvyn Fuss, and L. Waverman. Dynamic Adjustment Models of
Industrial Energy Demand: Empirical Analysis of U.S. Manufacturing,
1947-1974. Report prepared for Electric Power Research Institute (EA-
1613). Palo Alto, CA, 1980.
Becker, Gary. A Theory in the Allocation of Time. Economic Journal
75:493-517, 1965.
Blackorby, Charles, et al. Homothetic Separability and Consumer
Budgeting. Econometrica 38:468-472, 1970.
, Daniel Primont and R. Robert Russell. Duality, Separability
and Functional Structure: Theory and Economic Application.
Amsterdam/New York, North Holland, 1978.
Blank, Fred, et al. Valuation of Aesthetic Preferences: A Case Study
of the Economic Value of Visibility. . Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 1978.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Federal Reserve
Bulletin. Volume 62, 1976.
Bowden, Roger J. The Econometrics of Disequilibrium. Amsterdam/New
York, North Holland, 1978.
Brookshire, David, et al. Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of
Hedonic Approaches. American Economic Review, forthcoming 1981.
Brown, A. and A. Deaton. Surveys in Applied Economics: Models of
Consumer Behavior. The Economic Journal 82:1145-1236, 1972.
Brown, Charles. Equalizing Differences in the Labor Market.
Quarterly Journal of Economics 94:113-134, 1980.
Brown, M. and D. Heien. The S-Branch Utility Tree: A Generalization
of the Linear Expenditure System. Econometrica 40:737-747, 1972.
Caddy, Vern. Empirical Estimation of the Elasticity of Substitution.
Preliminary Working Paper Number OP-09. Melbourne, Industries
Assistance Commission, 1976.
11-2
-------
Christ, Carl F., et al. Measurement in Economics: Studies in
Mathematical Economics and Econometrics. Stanford, Stanford
University Press, 1963.
Christensen, Laurits R. and William H. Greene. Economies of Scale in
U.S. Electric Power Generation. Journal of Political Economy 84:655-
676, 1976.
and Marilyn Manser. Estimating U.S. Consumer
Preferences for Meatwith a Flexible Utility Function. Journal of
Econometrics 5:37-53, 1977.
and Dale W. Jorgensen. The Measurement of U.S.
Real Capital Input. 1929-1967. Review of Income and Wealth 15:293-
320, 1980.
and Lawrence J. Lau.
Transcendental Logarithmic Production Frontiers. Review of Economics
and Statistics 55:28-45, 1973.
Church, Albert M. Zoning and Vacant Land Values A Case Study of
Albuquerque, New Mexico. Paper presented at Colloquium on Land
Valuation Methods, June 1-2, 1978.
Clapp, John M. The Intrametropolitan Location of Office Activities,
Journal of Regional Science 20:387-399, 1980.
Cochrane, D. and G.H. Orcutt. Application of Least Squares
Regressions to Relationships Containing Autocorrelated Error Terms.
Journal of the American Statistical Association 44:32-61, 1949.
Coen, Robert M. Effects of Tax Policy on Investment in Manufacturing.
Papers and Proceedings of the American Economic Association 58:200-
211, 1975.
Court, Louis M. Entrepreneurial and Consumer Demand Theories for
Commodity Spectra. Econometrica 9(1):135-162, April 1941; 9(2):241-
297, July-October 1941.
Cowing, Thomas G. The Effectiveness of Rate-of-Return Regulation: An
Empirical Test Using Profit Functions, in Melvyn Fuss and Daniel
McFadden (eds.) Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and
Applications. Vol. 2. New York, North Holland, 1978, pp. 215-246.
and V. Kerry Smith. The Estimation of a Production Technology:
A Survey of Econometric Analyses of Steam-Electric Generation. Land
Economics 54:156-186, 1978.
. Manual for Computer Tape File on the
Regulated Steam-Electric Power Industry 1948-1972. A report prepared
for the Federal Energy Administration (CO-03-50158-00), Binghamton,
NY, 1976.
11-3
-------
_ A Survey of Econometric Models of the
Supply and Cost Structure of Electricity. A report prepared ,for the
Electric Power Research Institute (EA-517-SR), Palo Alto, CA, 1978.
Cramer/ J.S. Empirical Econometrics. Amsterdam/New York, North
Holland, 1969.
Dagenais, M. The Use of Incomplete Observations in Multiple
Regression Analysis. Journal of Econometrics 1:317-328, 1973.
Deaton, A. and J. Muellbauer. Economics and Consumer Behavior.
penny, Michael and J. Douglas May. Homotheticity and Real Value-Added
in Canadian Manufacturing, in Melvin Fuss and Daniel McFadden (eds.)
Production Economics: A Duel Approach to Theory and Applications.
Vol. 2. New York, North Holland, 1978, pp. 53-70.
Dhrymes, Phoebus J. On Devising Unbiased Estimators for the
Parameters of the Cobb-Douglas Production Function. Econometrica
30:297-304, 1962.
Diewert, W.E. An Application of the Shephard Duality Theorem: A
Generalized Leontief Production Function. Journal of Political
Economy 79:481-507, 1971.
. Exact and Superlative Index Numbers. Journal of Econometrics
4:115-145, 1976.
Downing, Paul B. Factors Affecting Commercial Land Values: An
Empirical Study of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Land Economics 49:44-56,
1973.
Fair, Ray C. The Estimation of Simultaneous Equation Models with
Lagged Endogenous Variables and First Order Serially Correlated
Errors. Econometrica 38:507-516, 1970.
Field, Barry C. and Charles Grebensteia Capital-Energy Substitution
in U.S. Manufacturing. Review of Economics and Statistics 62:207-212,
1980.
Fischel, W. Determinants of Voting on Environmental Quality: A Study
of a New Hampshire Pulp Mill Referendum. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management 6:107-118, 1979,
Freeman, A. Myrick III. Spatial Equilibrium, the Theory of Rents, and
the Measurement of Benefits from Public Programs: A Comment.
Quarterly Journal of Economics 89:470-473, 1975.
Fuss, Melvyn. The Demand for Energy in Canadian Manufacturing.
Journal of Econometrics 5:89-116, 1977.
11-4
-------
. Factor Substitution in Electricity Generation: A Test of the
Putty-Clay Hypothesis, in Melvyn Fuss and Daniel McFadden (eds.)
Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications.
Vol. 2. New York, North Holland, 1978, pp. 187-213.
, Daniel McFadden and Yair Mundlak. A Survey of Functional Forms
in the Economic Analysis of Production, in Melvyn Fuss and Daniel
McFadden (eds.) Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and
Applications. Vol. 1. New York, North Holland, 1978, pp. 219-268.
Gallant, A. Ronald. Testing a Subset of the Parameters of a Nonlinear
Regression Model. Journal of the American Statistical Association
70:927-932, 1975.
Gardner, Bruce L. Futures Prices in Supply Analysis. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics 58: 81-84, 1976.
Gertsbakh, I.E. Models of Preventive Maintenance. (Vol. 23: Studies
in Mathematical and Managerial Economics.) Amsterdam/New York, North
Holland, 1977.
Goldfeld, Stephen M. and Richard E. Quandt. Nonlinear Methods in
Econometrics. Amsterdam/New York, North Holland, 1972.
Goodwin, Susan A. Measuring the Value of Housing Quality A Note.
Journal of Regional Science 17:107-115, 1977.
Gorman, W. Separable Utility and Aggregation. Econometrica 27:469-
481, 1959.
Grether, D.M. and Peter Mieskowski. Determinants of Real Estate
Values. Journal of Urban Economics 1:127-146, 1974.
Griliches, Zvi and S. Adelman. On an Index of Quality Change.
Journal of the American Statistical Association 56:535-548, 1961.
, ed. Price Indexes and Quality Change. Cambridge,
Harvard University Press, 1971.
Hacklander, Duane. The Decade Ahead for U.S. Soybeans. In Fats and
Oils Situation, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C., February 1976, pp. 30-33.
Hall, Robert E. Wages, Income, and Hours of Work in the U.S. Labor
Force, in G. Cain and H. Watts (eds.) Income Maintenance and Labor
Supply. New York, Rand McNally, 1973.
^ and Dale W. Jorgensen. Tax Policy and Investment Behavior.
American Economic Review, 57:391-414, 1967.
Halvorsen, Robert. Energy Substitution in U.S. Manufacturing. Review
of Economics and Statistics 59:381-388, 1977.
11-5
-------
Hamermesh, D, Economic Aspects of Job Satisfaction, in O. Ashenfelter
and W. Gates, (eds.) Essays in Labor Market and Population Analysis.
New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1977.
Heckman, James. The Common Structure of Statistical Models of
Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a
Simple Estimator for Such Models. Annals of Economic and Social
Measurement 5:475-92, 1976.
. Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error. Econometrica
47:153-162, 1979.
Henderson, James M. and Richard E. Quandt. Microeconomic Theory: A
Mathematical Approach. New York/ McGraw-Hill, 1958.
Hildebrand, George H. and Ta-Chung Liu. Manufacturing Production
Functions in the U.S., 1957. Ithaca, Cornell University School of
Industrial and Labor Relations, 1965.
Hoch, I. Climate, Wages and the Quality of Life. In: Low don Wingo
and Alan Evans (eds.) Public Economics and the Quality of Life,
Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977.
Hoicka, John _et al. Pollution Abatement and Unemployment: A Method-
ological Study, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Programs and Office of Water Progams (NTIS PB-207 109).
Washington, D.C., Institute of Public Administration, January 31,
1972.
Hori, Hajime. Revealed Preference for Public Goods. American
Economic Review 65:978-91, 1975.
Horst, Robert L., Jr. Estimation of the Value of Visibility Through
Application of the Expenditure Function. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, 1978.
Houck, James P. and Abraham Subotnik. The U.S. Supply of Soybeans:
Regional Acreage Functions. Agricultural Economics Research, 21:4,
October 1969.
, M.E. Ryan, and S. Subotnik. Soybeans and their Products
Markets, Models, and Policy. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota
Press, 1972.
, et al. Analyzing the Impact of Government Programs in Crop
Acerage. Technical Bulletin No. 1548. Washington, D.C., U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, August 1976.
Hulten, Charles R. Divisia Index Numbers. Econometrica, 41:1017-25,
1973.
International Monetary Fund. International Financial Statistics
Yearbook. Washington, D.C., 1980.
11-6
-------
Jorgenson, Dale W. and Zvi Griliches. The Explanation of Productivity
Change. Review of Economic Studies 34:249-283, 1967.
, Lawrence Lau and Timothy Stoker. Welfare Comparison Under
Exact Aggregation. Paper presented at American Economic Association
Meetings, December 1979.
, J.J. McCall and R. Radner. Optimal Replacement
Policy. Amsterdam/New York, North Holland, 1967.
Just, Richard E. and Darrell L. Hurth. Welfare Measures in a Multi-
Market Framework. American Economic Review 69:947-954, 1979.
Karn, J.F. and J.M. Quigley. Measuring the Value of Housing Quality.
Journal of the American Statistical Association 65:532-548, May 1970.
Kendrick, John W. and Beatrice N. Vaccara. New Developments in
Productivity Measurement and Analysis. NBER Studies in Income and
Wealth, Vol. 44. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Klein, Lawrence and H. Rubin. A Constant-Utility Index of the Cost of
Living. Review of Economic Studies 15:84-87, 1947.
Kmenta, Jan. Elements of Econometrics. New York, Macmillan, 1971.
. Some Properties of Alternative Estimates of a Cobb-Douglas
Production Function. Econometrica 32:183-188, 1964.
and Roy F. Gilbert. Small Sample Properties of Alternative
Estimators of Seemingly Unrelated Regressions. Journal of the
American Statistical Association 63:1180-1200, 1968.
Lancaster, Kelvin G. A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of
Political Economy 74:132-157, 1966.
Lau, Lawrence J. Existence Conditions for Aggregate Demand Functions:
The Case of a Single Index. Technical Report No. 248, Institute for
Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford University,
October 1977.
^ , Wuu-Long Lin and Pan A. Yotopoulos. The Linear
Logarithmic Expenditure System: An Application to Consumption -
Leisure Choice. Econometrica 46:843-868, 1978.
Lind, Robert C. Spatial Equilibrium, the Theory of Rents, and the
Measurement of Benefits from Public Programs. Quarterly Journal of
Economics 87:188-207, 1973.
Lucas, Robert E.B. Hedonic Wage Equations and Psychic Wages in the
Returns to Schooling. American Economic Review 67:549-558, 1977.
Maddala, G. Econometrics. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1977.
11-7
-------
Maler, Karl-Goran. Environmental Economics: A Theoretical Inquiry.
Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press/ 1974.
Meyer, J. and R. Leone. The Urban Disamenity Revisited. In: Lowdon
Wingo and Alan Evans (eds.) Public Economics and the Quality of Life,
Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977.
Michigan, University. Institute for Social Research. Panel Study on
Income Dynamics, 1971.
Mieszkowski, Peter and Mahlon Straszheim (eds.) Current Issues in
Urban Economics. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979.
Mishan, E.J. Cost-Benefit Analysis (2nd Edition). New York, Praeger,
1976.
Moroney, J.R. The Structure of Production in American Manufacturing.
Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1972.
Muellbauer, J. Household Production Theory, Quality and the Hedonic
Technique. American Economic Review 64:977-994, 1974.
Muth, Richard. Household Production and Consumer Demand Functions.
Econometrica 34:699-708, 1966.
Nakamura, Masao, Alice Nakamura, and Dallas Cullen. Job
Opportunities, the Offered Wage, and the Labor Supply of Married
Women. American Economic Review 69:787-805, 1979.
Nerlove, Marc. Returns to Scale in Electricity Supply, in Carl F.
Christ et al. Measurement in Economics: Studies in Mathematical
Economics and Econometrics. Stanford, Stanford University Press,
1963, pp. 167-198.
Nordhaus, W. and J. Tobin. Is Growth Obsolete in Economic Growth?
New York, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1972.
Ohta, Makoto and Zvi Griliches. Makes and Depreciation in the U.S.
Passenger Car Market. Mimeographed, Harvard University, 1972.
Pindyck, Robert S. Interfuel Substitution and the Industrial Demand
for Energy: An International Comparison. Review of Economics and
Statistics 61:169-179, 1979.
and Daniel L. Rubinfeld. Econometric Models and Economic
Forecasts. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1976.
Pitkin, John and George Masnick. Projections of Housing Consumption
in the U.S., 1980 to 2000, By a Cohort Method. Annual Housing Survey
Studies, No. 9. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. June
1980.
11-8
-------
Pogue, Gerald A. Estimation of the Cost of Capital for Major U.S.
Industries with Application to Pollution-Control Investments. EPA-
230/3-76-001, 1975.
Pollak, Robert A. Conditional Demand Functions and Consumption
Theory. Quarterly Journal of Economics 83:60-78, 1969.
and Michael Wachter. The Relevance of the Household Production
Function and its Implications for the Allocation of Time. Journal of
Political Economy 83(2):255-277, 1975.
and Terence J. Wales. Comparison of the Quadratic Expenditure
Expenditure System and Translog Demand Systems with Alternative
Specifications of Demographic Effects. Econometrica 48:595-612, 1980.
. Estimation of Complete Demand Systems
from Household Budget Data. American Economic Review 68:348-359,
1978.
Randall, Alan and John R. Stoll. Consumer's Surplus in Commodity
Space. American Economic Review 70:449-455, 1980.
, Barry Ives, and E. Eastman. Bidding Games for Valuation of
Aesthetic Environmental Improvements. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management 1:132-149, 1974.
Rosen, Harvey S. Taxes in a Labor Supply Model with Joint Wages-Hours
Determination. Econometrica 44:485-507, 1976.
Rosen, Sherwin. Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product
Differentiation in Perfect Competition. Journal of Political Economy
82:34-55, 1974.
. Wage-Based Indexes of Urban Quality of Life, in Peter
Mieszkowski and Mahlon Straszheim (eds.) Current Issues in Urban
Economics. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979.
Samuelson, Paul. The Problem of Integrability in Utility Theory.
Econometrica 17:335-385, 1950.
Schmalensee, Richard. Another Look at the Social Valuation of Input
Price Changes. American Economic Review, 66:239-243, 1976.
Schnore, Ann B. and Raymond J. Struyk. Segmentation in Urban Housing
Markets. Journal of Urban Economics 3:146-166, 1976.
Shephard, Ronald W. Theory of Cost and Production Functions.
Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1953, 1970.
Star, Spencer and Robert E. Hall. An Approximate Divisia Index of
Total Factor Productivity. Econometrica 44:257-263, 1976.
11-9
-------
Stone, Richard. Linear Expenditure Systems and Demand Analysis: An
Application to the Pattern of British Demand. The Economic Journal
64:511-527, 1954.
Straszheim, Donald H. and Mahlon R. Strazheim. An Econometric
Analysis of the Determination of Prices in Manufacturing Industries.
Review of Economics and Statistics 58:191-201, 1976.
Strazheim, Mahlon. Hedonic Estimation of Housing Market Prices: A
Further Comment. Review of Economics and Statistics 56:404-406, 1974.
Strotz, Robert H. The Empirical Implications of a Utility Tree.
Econometrica 25:269-280, 1957.
__^> The Use of Land Value Changes to Measure the Welfare Benefits
of Land Improvements, in Joseph E. Haring, (ed.) The New Economics of
Regulated Industries. Los Angeles, Occidental College, 1968, pp. 174-
186.
Taylor, Lester. The Demand for Energy: A Survey of Price and Income
Elasticities. In: W.D. Nordhaus (ed.) International Studies of the
cemand for Energy. Amsterdam, North Holland, 1977, pp. 3-43.
Telser, Lester G. Iterative Estimation of a Set of Linear Regression
Equations. Journal of the American Statistical Association 59:845-
862, 1964.
Thaler, R. and Sherwin Rosen. The Value of Saving a Life: Evidence
from the Labor Market, in N.E. Terleckyj (ed.) Household Production
and Consumption. New York, National Bureau of Economic Research,
1975, pp. 265-298.
Theil, Henri. Economics and Information Theory. Chicago, Rand
McNally, 1967.
United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization. Monthly Bulletin
of Agricultural Economics and Statistics. Rome, Italy, various issues
from 1955 to 1977.
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Business Statistics 1977 Biennial
Editioa Washington, D.C.
. Interindustry Transactions in New Structures and Equipment,
1963 and 1967, Vol. 1, 1975.
. Press Release (BEA 80-74), December 9. 1980.
. Survey of Current Business. Various Issues.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Average Retail Prices of Selected
Commodities and Services, Fall 1971, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1973.
11-10
-------
. Capital Stock Estimates for Input-Output Industries: Methods
and Data. Bulletin 2034. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1979.
. Consumer Expenditure Survey: Integrated Diary and Interview
Survey Data, 1972-73. Bulletin 1992, Washington, D.C., U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1978.
. Estimated Retail Prices and Indexes of Fuels and Utilities,
1973.
. Estimated Retail Food Prices by Cities, annual averages 1972-
1975.
. Handbook of Labor Statistics, 1978, Bulletin 2000; and 1979,
Bulletin 2070. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office,
1979, 1980.
. Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 1910. Washington, D.C., U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1976.
. Office of Prices and Living Conditions. Wholesale Prices and
Price Indexes. Data for month of October, 1975-1977. Washington,
D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office.
. Three Standards of Living for an Urban Family of Four Persons.
Washington, D.C., Spring 1967.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Annual Housing Survey, 1974-1976: Housing
Characteristics for Selected Metropolitan Areas. Washington, D.C.,
GPO, 1976-1978.
Annual Survey of Manufactures, 1955-1971.
. Census of Housing, 1970: Metropolitan Housing Characteris-
tics. Washington, D.C., GPO, 1972.
_. Census of Manufactures, 1954. Vols. 1,3: Summary and Area
Statistics.
Statistics.
Census of Manufactures, 1958. Vols. 1,3: Summary and Area
Statistics.
Census of Manufactures, 1963. Vols. 1,3: Summary and Area
Statistics.
Census of Manufactures, 1967. Vols. 1,3: Summary and Area
Statistics.
Census of Manufactures, 1972. Vols. 1,3: Summary and Area
11-11
-------
. Census of Population, 1970. (1 in a 100 Public Use Tape).
Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office.
. County and City Data Book. 1972, 1977, Washington, D.C., GPO,
1973 and 1978.
Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures. Annual 1973-1978.
Current Population Reports Series MA-200.
. Projections of the Number of Households and Families: 1979 to
1995. Current Population Reports. Series P-25, No. 805, 1979.
_^^^_. Projections of the Population of the United States: 1977 to
2050. Current Population Reports. Series P-25, No. 704. July 1977.
. Selected Industrial Air Pollution Control Equipment, 1971-
1979. Current Industrial Reports, Series MA-35J. Washington, B.C.
U.S. Government Printing Office.
_. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Various years.
Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Hearings on Acid Rain
held February 26/27, 1980. 96th Congress, 2nd Session. Washington,
B.C., GPO, 1980.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics Annual.
1954-1979.
County Statistics. Various States 1975-1977.
_. Crop Reporting Board. Agricultural Prices, Annual Summary
1975-1977.
. Crop Reporting Board. Crop Production. Annual. 1974-1979.
. Crop Reporting Board Catalog 1980 Releases. Washington, B.C.,
January 1980.
. Field Crops: Area, Yield and Production by States, 1969-1974.
Statistical Bulletin 582. Washington, D.C., December 1977.
. Meat Animals: Production Disposition, Income 1978-1979.
Washington, UC., April 1980.
. Economic Research Service. Changes in Farm Production and
Efficiency. Statistical Bulletin No. 581, 1977.
. Economic Research Service. Fats and Oils Situation. No. FOS-
276 to No. FOS-289.
11-12
-------
Economic Research Service. Fertilizer Situation. Annual.
1975-1978.
. State Extension Services. Reports of Tonnage of Agricultural
Limestone Used in the United States. 1975-1977.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the United
States, 1978.
U.S. Department of Commerce News. Projections of Personal Income to
the Year 2000. December 9, 1980.
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual
Report to Congress - 1980 (Volume 3: Forecasts). Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981.
U.S. Federal Power Commission. Annual Survey of Cost and Quality of
Electric Utility Plant Fuels, 1973-1977.
. Hydroelectric Plant Construction Cost and Annual Production
Expenses 1953-1956. Supplement No. 16, 1972. Washington, D.C., 1975.
. Statistics of Privately Owned Electric Utilities in the U.S.,
1972 and 1975. Washington, D.C.
. Steam-Electric Plant Air and Water Quality Control Data.
Annual, 1969-1976.
U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Report of the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, 1972-1973.
U.S. Office of the Federal Register. Code of Federal Regulations,
Title 21 (Food and Drugs) Part 110, April 1, 1980.
Varian, Hal. Microeconomic Analysis. New York, Norton, 1978.
Viscusi, W. Kip. Wealth Effects and Earnings Premiums for Job
Hazards. Review of Economics and Statistics 60:408-416, 1978.
Von Furstenberg, George M., ed. Capital Efficiency and Growth.
Cambridge, MA, Ballinger, 1980.
Wales, Terence. Labor Supply and Commuting Time: An Empirical Study
Journal of Econometrics 8:215-226, 1978.
and A.D. Woodland. Estimation of Household Utility Functions
and Labor Supply Response. International Economic Review 17:397-410,
1976.
Estimation of the Allocation of Time for
Work, Leisure, and Housework. Econometrica 45:115-132, 1977.
11-13
-------
Walters, A.A. Econometric Studies of Production, in A.A. Walters. An
Introduction to Econometrics. New York, Norton, 1971, pp. 269-340.
. Production and Cost Functions: An Econometric Survey. Econo-
metrica 31:1-66, 1963.
Wharton EFA Inc. The Wharton EFA Annual Model: Historical Tables,
1955-1976.
Willig, Robert D. Consumers' Surplus Without Apology. American
Economic Review 66:589-597, 1976.
Wingo, Lowdon and Alan Evans, eds. Public Economics and the Quality
of Life. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977.
Witte, Ann D. and Sharon K. Long. Evaluating the Effects of Public
Policies on Land Prices in Metropolitan Areas: Some Suggested
Approaches. Paper presented at HUD Seminar on Land Prices and Public
Policy, Washington, D.C., February 4-5, 1980.
Womack, Abner. The U.S. Demand for Corn, Sorghum, Oats, and Barley:
An Econometric Analysis Economic Report 76-5. St. Paul, University of
Minnesota, August 1976.
Zellner, Arnold. An Efficient Method of Estimating Seemingly
Unrelated Regressions and Tests for Aggregation Bias. Journal of the
American Statistical Association 57:348-368, 1962.
, Jan Kmenta and J. Dreze. Specification and Estimation of Cobb-
Douglas Production Function Models. Econometrica 34:784-795, 1966.
11-14
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY PART B
SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON POLLUTION
Adams, R.M., et al. Methods Development for Assessing Air Pollution
Control Benefits, Vol. 3: A Preliminary Assessment of Air Pollution
Damages for Selected Crops Within Southern California. Prepared for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Laramie, University of
Wyoming, February 1979.
Anderson, Robert J., Jr. and Thomas D. Crocker. Air Pollution and
Residential Property Values. Urban Studies 8:171-180, 1971.
. Air Pollution and
Property Values: A Reply. Review of Economics and Statistics 54:470-
473, 1972.
Appel, David. Estimating the Benefits of Air Quality Improvement: An
Hedonic Price Index Approach Applied to the New York Metropolitan
Area, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, 1980.
Armentano, T.V., e_t al. Calculation of Yield-Loss Coefficients for
Major Crops in the Ohio River Basin, in Orie L. Loucks (ed.), Crop and
Forest Losses Due to Current and Projected Emissions from Coal-Fired
Power Plants in the Ohio River Basin. Final Draft Report.
Indianapolis, Indiana, The Institute of Ecology. June 1980, pp. 88-
145.
Barnes, R.A. The Long Range Transport of Air Pollution: A Review of
European Experience. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
29:1219-1235, 1979.
Barrett, Larry B. and Thomas E. Waddell. Cost of Air Pollution
Damage: A Status Report. Research Triangle Park, NC, National
Environmental Research Center, February 1973.
Basala, Allen and Hugh Devine. Feasibility Analysis for Benefit
Assessment of SO and PM Air Pollution Control: A Theoretical
Procedure, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Economic
Analysis Branch, January 25, 1980.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Economic Effects of Metallic
Corrosion in the U.S. - Appendix B Part 2. Prepared for National
Bureau of Standards (NBS No. 511-2). Washington, D.C., May 1978.
11-15
-------
Bawa, Vijay S. On Optimal Pollution Control Policies, Economic
Discussion Paper No. 27. Holmdel, NJ, Bell Telephone Laboratories,
May 1975.
Benedict, H.M., C.J. Miller and R.E. Olson. Economic Impact of Air
Pollutants on Plants in the United States. Menlo Park, CA, Stanford
Research Institute, November 1971.
and J.S. Smith. Assessment of Economic
Impact of Air Pollutants on Vegetation in the United States - 1969 and
1971. Menlo Park, CA, Stanford Research Institute, 1973.
Bhargava, R.P. Selection of a Subset of Pollution Stations in the Bay
Area of California on the Basis of the Characteristic, 24-Hour
Suspended Particulate Concentration, from the Viewpoint of Variation.
Statistics and Environmental Factors in Health: Technical Report No.
37. New Canaan, CT, SIAM Institute for Mathematics and Society, April
1980.
Bich, Tran Thi Ngoc and V. Kerry Smith. The Role of Air and Water
Residuals for Steam Electric Power Generation. Unpublished.
Bishop, John and Charles Cicchetti. Some Institutional and Conceptual
Thoughts on the Measurement of Indirect and Intangible Benefits and
Costs, in Henry M. Peskin and Eugene P. Seskin (eds.} Cost Benefit
Analysis and Water Pollution Policy. Washington, B.C., The Urban
Institute, 1975.
Bohne, H. Schadlichkeit von Staub aus Zementwerken fur Haldbestande.
Allg. Forstz 18:107-111, 1963.
Booz Allen and Hamilton, Inc. Study to Determine Residential Soiling
Costs of Particulate Air Pollution. Raleigh, NC, National Air
Pollution Control Administration, October 1970.
Bornstein, Robert D, Annotated Bibliography of Recent Publications on
California Air Pollution. 4 Vols. Statistics and Environmental
Factors in Health: Technical Reports No. 39-42. New Canaan, CT, SIAM
Institute for Mathematics and Society, July 1980.
Brisley, H.R. and W.W. Jones. Sulfur Dioxide Fumigation of Wheat with
Special Reference to its Effect on Yield. Plant Physiology 25:666-
681, 1950.
, C.R. Davis, and J.A. Booth. Sulfur Dioxide Fumigation of
Cotton With Special Reference to Its Own Effect on Yield. Agronomy
Journal 51:77-80, 1959.
11-16
-------
Brookshire, David S. et al. Methods Development for Assessing
Tradeoffs in Environmental Management. Vol. 2: Experiments in
Valuing Non-Market Goods: A Case Study of Alternative Benefit
Measures of Air Pollution Control in the South Coast Air Basin of
Southern California. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Laramie, University of Wyoming, September 1, 1978.
. Methods Development for Assessing Tradeoffs in Environmental
Management. Vol. 5: Executive Summary. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Laramie, University of Wyoming,
November 13, 1978.
Business Roundtable Air Quality Project:
Harvard University. School of Public Health and Division of
Applied Sciences. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Vol.
1. Cambridge, MA, November 1980.
Arthur EX Little, Inc. The Effects of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration on Industrial Development. Vol. III. Cambridge,
MA, November 1980.
Environmental Research and Technology, Inc. The Impact of Air
Quality Permits Procedures on Industrial Planning and
Development. Vol. III. Concord, MA, November 1980.
National Economic Research Associates, Inc. Cost Effectiveness
and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Air Quality Regulation. Vol. IV.
Washington, D.C., November 1980.
California. State. Air Resources Board. Ten-Year Summary of
California Air Quality Data 1963-1972. Sacramento, CA, January 1974.
Clean Air Act of 1970 42 USC 7401 et seg. (PL91-604) December 31,
1970. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (PL95-95) August 7, 1977.
Cowling, D.W., L.H.P. Jones and D.R. Lockyer. Increased Yield Through
Correction of Fulfur Deficiency in Ryegrass Exposed to Sulfur Dioxide.
Nature 243:479-480, 1973.
Crocker, Thomas D. Urban Air Pollution Damage Functions: Theory and
Measurement, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air Programs. Riverside, University of California, June 15, 1971.
r and Bruce A. Foster. Decision Problems in the Control of Acid
Precipitation: Nonconvexities and Irreversibilities, unpublished
paper, 1980.
A First Exercise in Assessing the
Economic Benefits of Controlling Acid Precipitation, prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Health and Ecological
Effects/ January 1980.
11-17
-------
, et al. Methods Development for Assessing Tradeoffs in
EnvironmentaT~Management, Vol. 1: Experiments in the Economics of Air
Pollution Epidemiology. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Laramie, University of Wyoming, November 13, 1978.
Cropper, Maureen L., et_ al. Methods Development for Assessing Air
Pollution Control Benefits. Vol. 4: Studies on Partial Equilibrium
Approaches to Valuation of Environmental Amenities. Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Riverside, University of
California, September 1, 1978.
Deyak, Timothy A., and V. Kerry Smith. Residential Property Values
and Air Pollution: Some New Evidence. Quarterly Review of Economics
and Business 14:93-100, 1974.
Dunbar, Frederick C. Secondary Standards for SOX and Particulates:
Economic Effects, paper presented before the American Air Pollution
Control Association Specialty Conference on Secondary Standards for
SOV Particulates, Atlanta, GA, September 17, 1980.
A
Dvorak, A.J. et al. Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Plants on Fish,
Wildlife, and their Habitats, prepared by Argonne National Laboratory,
Division of Environmental Impact Studies for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services and Environmental
Contaminants Evaluation, Power Plant Project/Coal Project (FWS/OBS-
78/29). Washington, D.C., GPO, March 1978.
Economics of Air Pollutioa ORBIT Search Bibliography, November 30,
1977.
Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. Feasibility of a Welfare
Benefits Analysis for TSP and SOX, prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Economic Analysis Branch, January 15, 1980.
EPA Briefing on Particulate/S0x Regulatory Analysis, January 18, 1980
and Memorandum on meeting January 22, 1980.
EPA Memorandum on NOV Regulatory Analysis Meeting, January 24, 1980.
A
Eureka Laboratories, Inc. The Economic Effect of Air Pollution of
Agricultural Crops: Application and Evaluation of Methodologies, A
Case Study. Interim report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory. Sacramento, CA, November
1979.
Faith, Ray and Ruth Sheshinski. Misspecification of Trend in Spatial
Random Function Interpolation with Application to Oxidant Mapping.
Statistics and Environmental Factors in Health: Technical Report No.
28. Philadelphia, SIAM Institute for Mathematics and Society,
September 1979.
11-18
-------
Faller, N. Effects of Atmospheric S02 on Plants. Sulfur Institute
Journal 6:5-7, 1970.
Feenberg, Dan. Measuring the Benefits of Water Pollution Control,
forthcoming.
Feliciano, A. 1971 Survey and Assessment of Air Pollution Damage to
Vegetation in New Jersey. New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University,
Cooperative Extension Service, 1972.
Fink, F.W., F.H. Buttner and W.K. Boyd. Technical-Economic Evaluation
of Air-Pollution Corrosion Costs on Metals in the U.S. (NTIS-PB198-
453). Columbus, OH, Battelle Memorial Institute, February 19. 1971.
Fleiss, Joseph L. Inference about Population Attributable Risk from
Cross-Sectional Studies. Statistics and Environmental Factors in
Health: Technical Report. Philadelphia, SIAM Institute for
Mathematics and Society, March 26, 1979.
Freeman, A. Myrick III. Air Pollution and Property Values: A
Methodological Comment. Review of Economics and Statistics 53:415-
416, 1971.
Air Pollution and Property Values: A Further Comment. Review
of Economics and Statistics 56:554-556, 1974.
. The Benefits of Air and Water Pollution Control: A Review and
Synthesis of Recent Estimates, prepared for Council on Environmental
Quality, July 1979.
. The Benefits of Environmental Improvement: Theory and
Practice. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979.
. Hedonic Prices, Property Values and Measuring Environmental
Benefits: A Survey of the Issues. Scandinavian Journal of Economics
154-173, 1979.
^. On Estimating Air Pollution Control Benefits from Land Value
Studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1:74-83,
1974.
Gianessi, Leonard P., Henry Peskin and Edward Wolff. The
Distributional Implications of National Air Pollution Damage
Estimates, prepared for the Conference on Research and Income and
Wealth, University of Michigan, May 15-17, 1974. New York, National
Bureau of Economic Research, June 4, 1974.
Gillette, Donald G. Sulfur Dioxide and Material Damage. Journal of
the Air Pollution Control Association 25:1238-1243, 1975.
Graves, Philip, Ronald Krumm and Daniel Violette. Estimating the
Benefits of Improved Air Quality, prepared for the Benefit Methodology
Panel, National Commission on Air Quality, December 1979.
11-19
-------
Grivet, Cyril D. Modeling and Analysis of Air Quality Data.
Statistics and Environmental Factors in Health: Technical Report No.
43. New Canaan, CT, SIAM Institute for Mathematics and Society,
September 1980.
Guderian, R. Air Pollution: Phytotoxicity of Acidic Gases and Its
Significance in Air Pollution Control. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1977.
Hallgren, J.E. Physiological and Biochemical Effects of Sulfur
Dioxide on Plants, in J.O. Nriagu (ed.) Sulfur in the Environment Vol.
2. New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1978. pp. 163-210.
Harrison, David and Daniel L. Rubinfeld. Hedonic Housing Prices and
the Demand for Clean Air. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 5:81-102, 1978.
. The Air Pollution and
Property Value Debate. Review of Economics and Statistics 60:635-638,
1978.
Haynie, Fred H. Economic Assessment of Pollution Related Corrosion
Damage. Paper presented at the Electrochemical Society Symposium on
Atmospheric Corrosion, October 6, 1980.
Heagle, A.S. Ranking of Soybean Cultivars for Resistance to Ozone
Using Different Ozone Doses and Response Measures. Environmental
Pollution 19:1-10, 1979.
Heck, W.W. Factors Influencing Expression of Oxidant Damage to
Plants. Annual Review of Phytopathology 6:165-188, 1968.
. Plant and Microorganisms, in Environmental Health Effects,
Vol. 2. Ozone and Other Photochemical Oxidants. EPA-600/1-76-0276.
Research Triangle Park, NC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of R&D, 1976.
Home, Julie. Visibility Regulations, paper presented at the Air
Pollution Control Association Specialty Conference on Visibility,
Denver, November 27-28, 1979 in Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association 30:120-122, 1980.
Institute for Defense Analyses. Economic and Social Measures of
Biologic and Climatic Change, CIAP Monograph 6, prepared for the
Department of Transporation, Climate Impact Assessment Program (NTIS
DOT-TST-75-56). Arlington, VA, September 1975.
JRB Associates. Technological Feasibility Assessment and Inflationary
Impact Statement of the Proposed Standard for Sulfur Dioxide,
29CFR1910.1030. Washington, D.C., U.S. Occupational Health and Safety
Administration, January 31, 1977.
11-20
-------
Jacobson, J.S. and A.C. Hill. Recognition of Air Pollution Injury to
Vegetation: A Pictorial Atlas. Pittsburgh, PA. Air Pollution
Control Association, 1970.
Kelly, Gabrielle. Pollutant Standards Index PSI. Statistics and
Environmental Factors in Health: Working Paper No. 11. Philadelphia,
SIAM Institute for Mathematics and Society, September 1979.
Kress, Lance W. and John M. Skelly. Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Native Ecosystems Allowable Pollutant
Concentrations, Corvallis, OR, Corvallis Environmental Research
Laboratory, September 6, 1979.
Krupa, S.V., et_ al. Impact of Air Pollutants on Terrestrial Vegetation
- A Literature Survey. State of Minnesota Environmental Quality
Council, 1976.
Lacasse, N.L. Assessment of Air Pollution Damage to Vegetation in
Pennsylvania. State College, PA, Center for Air Environment Studies,
1971.
, T.C. Weidensaul, and J.W. Carroll. Statewide Survey of Air
Pollution Damage to Vegetation, 1969. State College, PA, Center for
Air Environment Studies, January 1970.
Larsen, Ralph I. An Air Quality Data Analysis System for
Interrelating Effects, Standards and Needed Source Reductions.
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association 23:933-940, 1973.
. An Air Quality Data Analysis System for Interrelating Effects,
Standards and Needed Source Reductions, Part II. Journal of the Air
Pollution Control Association 24:551-558, 1974.
. An Air Quality Data Analysis System for Interrelating Effects,
Standards and Needed Source Reductions, Part IV. Journal of the Air
Pollution Control Association 27:454-459, 1977.
. A Mathematical Model for Relating Air Quality Measurements to
Air Quality Standards. Research Triangle Park., NC, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, November 1971.
. A New Mathematical Model of Air Pollutant Concentration
Averaging Time and Frequency, Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association 19:24-30, 1969; Comment 23:291-292, 1973; Reply 23:292,
1973.
. Relating Air Pollution Effects to Concentrations and Control,
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association 20:214-225, 1970.
and Walter W. Heck. An Air Quality Data Analysis System for
Interrelating Effects, Standards and Needed Source Reductions, Part
III. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association 26:325-333,
1976.
11-21
-------
Latimer, Douglas. Power Plant Impacts on Visibility in the West:
Siting and Emissions Control Implications, paper presented at the Air
Pollution Control Association Specialty Conference on Visibility,
Denver, November 27-28, 1979 in Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association 30:142-146, 1980.
Lave, Lester. Air Pollution Damage: Some Difficulties in Estimating
the Value of Abatement, in Allen V. Kneese and Blair T. Bower (eds.)
Environmental Quality Analysis. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University
Press for Resources for the Future, 1972, pp. 213-242.
and Eugene Seskin. Air Pollution and Human Health. Baltimore,
Resources for the Future, 1977.
Leung, S. et al. The Economic Effect of Air Pollution on Agricultural
Crops: Application and Evaluation of Methodologies, A Case Study.
Interim Report prepared for Corvallis Environmental Research
Laboratory. Sacramento, CA, Eureka Laboratories, Inc., November 1979.
. Methodologies for Valuation of Agricultural Crop Yield
Changes: A Review. (EPA-600/5-78-018). Corvallis, OR, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, August
1978.
Lewis, William H., Jr. Protection Against Visibility Impairment Under
the Clean Air Act, paper presented at the Air Pollution Control
Association Specialty Conference on Visibility, Denver, November 27-
28, 1979 in Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association 30:118-
120, 1980.
Linzon, S.N. Effects of Airborne Sulfur Pollutants on Plants, in J.O.
Nriagu (ed.) Sulfur in the Environment Vol. 2. New York, John Wiley &
Sons, 1978, pp. 109-162.
Lipfert, Frederick W. On the Evaluation of Air Pollution Control
Benefits, prepared for the National Commission on Air Quality,
November 1979.
Liu, Ben-chieh and Eden Siu-hung Yu. Physical and Economic Damage
Functions for Air Pollutants by Receptors (EPA-600/5-76-011), prepared
for Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, September 1976.
, Mary Kies and Jim Miller. Damage Functions for Air
Pollutants, prepared for Washington Environmental Research Center.
Kansas City, MO, Midwest Research Institute, February 10, 1976.
Lokey, Don, Harvey Richmond and Michael Jones. Revision of the Ozone
Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Research Triangle
Park, NC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Strategies and Air Standards Division, 1979.
11-22
-------
Malm, William C., Karen K. Leiker and John V. Molenar. Human
Perception of Visual Air Quality, paper presented at the Air Pollution
Control Association Specialty Conference on Visibility, Denver,
November 27-28, 1979 in Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association 30:122-131, 1980.
Mathtech, Inc. Notes on a Study of Benefits of Alternative Secondary
Standard Levels for TSP and SOo. u-s- Environmental Protection
Agency, Economic Analysis Branch, September 28, 1979.
McFadden, James E. and Michael D. Koontz. Sulfur Dioxide and Sulfates
Materials Damage Study, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory. Gaithersburg, MD,
Geomet Inc., February 1980.
Middleton, J.T. and A.O. Paulus. The Identification and Distribution
of Air Pollutants Through Plant Response. Arch. Indust. Health
14:526-532, 1956.
Millecan, A.A. A Survey and Assessment of Air Pollution Damage to
California Vegetation. California Department of Agriculture, June
1971.
. A Survey and Assessment of Air Pollution Damage to California
Vegetation. Sacramento, CA, Department of Food and Agriculture, 1976.
Miller, J.E. and D.G. Sprugel. Some Preliminary Notes Concerning the
Impact of Fossil Fuel Combustion on Crop Plants. Argonne, IL, Argonne
National Laboratory, 1979.
Miller, V.L., R.K. Howell, and B.E. Caldwell. Relative Sensitivity of
Soybean Genotypes to Ozone and Sulfur Dioxide. Journal of
Environmental Quality 3:35-37, 1974.
Moskowitz, Paul D., et al. Economic Assessment Impacts of Oxidants
and Sulfur Dioxide Air Pollution on Agricultural Productivity. Paper
presented at National Crop Loss Assessment Network Annual Program
Review, December 15-19, 1980. Upton, N.Y., Brookhaven National
Laboratory, 1980.
. Oxidant Air Pollution: Estimated Effects on U.S. Vegetation
in 1969 and 1974. Paper prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory. Upton, N.Y., Brookhaven
National Laboratory, November 1980.
Mudd, J.B. and T.T. Kozlowski, eds. Physiological Ecology. A Series
of Monographs, Texts, and Treatises. Responses of Plants to Air
Pollution. New York, Academic Press, 1975.
Naegele, J.A., ed. Air Pollution Damage to Vegetation. Advanced
Chemistry Series 122. Washington, D.C., American Chemistry Society,
1973.
11-23
-------
, W.A. Feder, and C.J. Brandt. Assessment of Air Pollution
Damage to Vegetation in New England, July 1971 - July 1972. Waltham,
MA, University of Massachusetts. Suburban Experiment Station, 1972.
National Academy of Science. Coordinating Committee on Air Quality
Studies. The Costs and Benefits of Automobile Emissions Control:
Vol. 4 of Air Quality and Automobile Emissions Control, Washington,
D.C., 1974.
National Research Council. Board on Toxicology and Environmental
Health Hazards. Committee on SO... Sulfur Oxides. Washington, D.C.,
National Academy of Sciences, 1975.
National Research Council. Commission on Natural Resources. Air
Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control. Prepared for the
Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, pursuant to S.Res 135.
Washington, D.C., 1975.
Nelson, Jon P. Economic Analysis of Transportation Noise Abatement.
Cambridge, MA, 1978.
. The Effects of Mobile Source Air and Noise Pollution on
Residential Property Values, Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1975.
__^ . Residential Choice, Hedonic Prices, and the Demand for Urban
Air Quality. Journal of Urban Economics 5:357-369, 1978.
Niskanen, William A. and Steve H. Hanke. Land Prices Substantially
Underestimate the Value of Environmental Quality. Review of Economics
and Statistics 59:375-377, 1977.
Noggle, J.C. and H.C. Jones. Accumulation of Atmospheric Sulfur by
Plants and Sulfur-Supplying Capacity of Soils. EPA-600-7-79-109.
Research Triangle Park, NC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1979.
Nriagu, J.O., ed. Sulfur in the Environment. Part 1: The
Atmospheric Cycle; Part 2: Ecological Impacts. New York, John Wiley
& Sons, 1978.
Ohio River Basin Energy Study (ORBES):
Loucks, Orie L., ed. Crop and Forest Losses Due to Current and
Projected Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants in the Ohio
River Basin. Final Draft Report. Indianapolis, IN, The
Institute of Ecology, June 1980.
Miller, Richard and Roland Usher. Modification of Crop Effects
Estimates Based on Peak-Load Emissions. (Comment on Loucks
above), 1980.
11-24
-------
Page, Walter P. and John M. Gowdy. Economic Losses in the
Columbus SMSA Due to Long-Range Transport of Airborne Residuals
in the ORBES Region. Draft, prepared for ORBES, June 1980.
Randolph, J.C. and W.W. Jones. Ohio River Basin Energy Study:
Land Use and Terrestrial Ecology. Draft Final Report, prepared
for U.S. EPA, Office of R&D, June 18, 1980.
Teknekron Research, Inc. Air Quality and Meteorology in the Ohio
River Basin - Baseline and Future Impacts. Prepared for U.S.
EPA, Office of R&D. Waltham, MA, July 1980.
. Selected Impacts of Electric Utilities Operations in the
Ohio River Basin (1976-2000): An Application of the Utility
Simulation Model. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of R&D.
Berkeley, CA, April 1980.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Environment
Directorate, Air Management Group. The Costs and Benefits of Sulphur
Oxide Control: A Methodological Study. Parts I and II.
(ENV/AIR/80.03). Paris, May 5, 1980.
Oshima, R.J. Development of a System for Evaluating and Reporting
Economic Crop Losses in California, III: Ozone Dosage-Crop Loss
Conversion Function - Alfalfa, Sweet Corn. Final Report to California
Air Resources Board, 1975.
, et^ al. Ozone Dosage-Crop Loss Function for Alfalfa: A Stan-
dardized Method for Assessing Crop Losses for Air Pollutants. Journal
of the Air Pollution Control Association 26:861-865, 1976.
Ott, Wayne R. Models of Human Exposure to Air Pollution. Statistics
and Environmental Factors in Health: Technical Report No. 32. New
Canaan, CT. SIAM Institute for Mathematics and Society, July 1980.
Palmquist, Raymond B. Impact of Highway Improvements on Property
Values in Washington. Olympia, WA, U.S. Department of Transporation,
Washington State Transportation Commission, July 1979.
Paterson, Ernest W. Review of 'Oxidant Air Pollution: Estimated
Effects on U.S. Vegetation in 1969 and 1974', by Paul D. Moskowitz,
et al. December 1980.
Peckham, Brian. Air Pollution and Residential Property Values in
Philadelphia. (Mimeo) 1970.
Pell, E.J. 1972 Survey and Assessment of Air Pollution Damage to
Vegetation in New Jersey. New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University,
Cooperative Extension Service, 1973.
11-25
-------
Perl, Lewis J. Alternative Estimates of the Benefits of Sulfur
Dioxide Emissions Control, prepared for the Benefit Estimation
Methodology Panel, National Commission on Air Quality, November 27,
1979.
. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Regulation. Paper
presented at the Conference on Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental
Regulation. Chicago, IL, October 16, 1980.
Polinsky, A. Mitchell and Daniel L. Rubinfeld The Air Pollution and
Property Value Debate, Review of Economics and Statistics, 57:106-110,
1975.
. Property Values and
the Benefits of Environmental Improvements:THeory and Measurement,
in Lowdon Wingo and Alan Evans (eds.) Public Economics and the
Quality of Life. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press for
Resources for the Future and the Centre for Environmental Studies,
1977.
and Steven Shavell. The Air Pollution and
Property Value Debate. Review of Economics and Statistics 57:100-104,
1975.
. Amenities and Property
Values in a Model of An Urban Area.Journal of Public Economics
5:119-129, 1976.
Reinert, R.A., A.S. Heagle, and W.W. Heck. Plant Response to
Pollutant Combinations, in J.B. Mudd and T.T. Koslowski (eds.)
Responses of Plants to Air Pollution. New York, Academic Press, 1975,
pp. 159-177.
Ricci, Paolo and Ronald Wyzga. The Health Effects of Reduced Air
Pollution, prepared for the National Commission on Air Quality,
November 7, 1979.
Ridker, Ronald G. Economic Costs of Air Pollution. New York, Praeger,
1967.
^^__ and John A. Henning. The Determinants of Residential Property
Values with Special Reference to Air Pollution. Review of Economics
and Statistics 49:246-257, 1967.
, ed. Population, Resources and the Environment, Vol. III.
Washington, D.C. U.S. Commission on Population Growth and the
American Future, 1972.
Rowe, Robert D. and Lauraine G. Chestnut. Visibility Benefits
Assessment Guidebook. Interim Report prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Denver, Abt/West, March 1981.
11-26
-------
Ryan, John W., et al. An Estimate of the Nonhealth Benefits of
Meeting the Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Final
Report prepared for National Commission on Air Quality. Menlo Park,
CA. SRI International, January 1981.
Salmon, R.L. Systems Analysis of the Effects of Air Pollution on
Materials. Kansas City, MO, Midwest Research Institute, 1970.
Seneca, Joseph and Peter Asch. The Benefits of Air Pollution Control
in New Jersey. New Brunswick, N.J., Center for Coastal and
Environmental Studies, Rutgers University, April 1979.
Setterstrom, C. and P.W. Zimmerman. Factors Influencing Suscepti-
bility of Plants to Sulfur Dioxide Injury. Contrib. Boyce Thompson
Inst. 10:155-186, 1939.
Schwarz, H. Uber die Wirkung des Magetits beim Atmospherischen Rosten
und beim Unterrosten von Austrichen. Werkst, Korros, 23:648-663,
1972.
Shy, Carl M., On Using Epidemiologic Evidence of Air Pollution
Effects, prepared for the Benefit Methodology Panel, National
Commission on Air Quality, December 10, 1979.
SIAM Institute for Mathematics and Society, Statistics and
Environmental Factors in Health, Final Summary Report on SIMS Three-
Year Study. Philadelphia, September 1979.
Small, Kenneth A. Air Pollution and Property Values: Further
Comment. Review of Economics and Statistics 57:111-113, 1975.
Smith, V. Kerry. The Economic Consequences of Air Pollution.
Cambridge, MA, Ballinger, 1976.
and Timothy A. Deyak. Measuring the Impact of Air Pollution on
Property Values. Journal of Regional Science 15:277-288, 1975.
Spence, James W., Fred H. Haynie and J.B. Upham. Effects of Gaseous
Pollutants on Paints: A Chamber Study. Journal of Paint Technology
47:57-63, 1975.
Spinka, J. Effects of Polluted Air on Fruit Trees and Legumes. Zira
19:13-15, 1971.
Spore, Robert. Property Value Differentials as a Measure of the
Economic Costs of Air Pollution. University Park, PA, Pennsylvania
State University, Center for Air Environment Studies, 1972.
Sprugel, D.G., et al. Effect of Chronic Sulfur Dioxide Fumigation on
Development of Yield and Seed Quality of Field-Grown Soybeans: A
Summary of 1977 and 1978 Experiments, Annual Report, Radiology and
Environmental Research Division. Argonne, IL, Argonne National
Laboratory, 1978.
11-27
-------
Standards for Fuel-Burning Sources: PM, SC^, NC>2« n. d.
Steele, William. The Effect of Air Pollution on the Value of Single-
Family Owner-Occupied Residential Property in Charleston, SC. Masters
Thesis Clemson University, 1972.
Stern, Arthur C., et al. Fundamentals of Air Pollution. New York,
Academic Press, 197T.
Switzer, Paul. Statistical Consideration in Network Design.
Statistics and Environmental Factors in Health: Working Paper No. 10.
Philadelphia, SIAM Institute for Mathematics and Society, August 1979.
Teknekron Research, Inc. Economic Impact of Water Pollution Control
on the Steam-Electric Industry, prepared for the National Commission
on Water Quality. Berkeley, CA, July 13, 1975.
Thibodeau, L.A. Assessing Air Pollution Control Benefits. n.d.
Thomas, M.D. and G.R. Hill. Relation of Sulfur Dioxide in the
Atmosphere to Photosynthesis and Respiration of Alfalfa. Plant
Physiology 12:309-383, 1937.
Tingey, D.T., et al. Chronic Ozone or Sulfur Dioxide Exposures or
Both Affect the Early Vegetative Growth of Soybean. Canadian Journal
of Plant Science 53:875-879, 1973.
. Foliar Injury Responses of 11 Plant Species to Ozone/Sulfur
Dioxide Mixtures. Atmos. Environ. 2:201-208, 1973.
. Vegetation Injury from the Interaction of Nitrogen Dioxide and
Sulfur Dioxide. Phytopathology 61:1506-1511, 1971.
Tombach, Ivar and Douglas Allard. Intercomparison of Visibility
Measurement Methods, paper presented at the Air Pollution Control
Association Specialty Conference on Visibility, Denver, November 27-
28, 1979 in Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association 30:134-
142, 1980.
Treshow, M. Environment and Plant Response. New York, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1970.
TRW Systems Group. Demonstration of a Regional Air Pollution Cost/
Benefit Model, (NTIS PB-202 345) prepared for the Air Pollution
Control Office. McLean, VA, July 1971.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Criteria &
Assessment Office. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter and
Sulfur Oxides, Vol. 1 - Summary and Conclusions. (External Review
Draft No. 1). Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1980.
. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides,
Vol. 2 - Air Quality. Research Triangle Park/ NC, April 1980.
11-28
-------
. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides,
Vol. 3 - Welfare Effects. Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1980.
, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides,
Vol. 4 - Health Effects. Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1980.
. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Aeros Manual
Series. Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1976. (Vol. 1: Aeros
Overview; Vol. 2: Aeros User's Manual; Vol. 3: Summary and
Retrieval; Vol 5: Aeros Manual of Codes; and Updates.)
. Air Quality Data, 1972-1977 Annual Statistics, 6 vols.
Research Triangle Park, NC, 1973-1978.
. Directory of Air Quality Monitoring Sites Active in 1972-1977,
6 vols. Research Triangle Park, NC, 1973-1978.
. National Air Quality Levels and Trends in TSP and SO
Determined by Data in the National Air Surveillance Network. Researc
Triangle Park, NC, April 1973.
. Protecting Visibility: An EPA Report to Congress, (EPA-450/5-
79-008). Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1979.
. Office of Research & Development. Addendum to 'The Health
Consequences of Sulfur Oxides: A Report from CHESS, 1970-1971,' May
1974. (EPA-600/1-80-021). Washington, D.C., April 1980.
U.S. National Bureau of Standards. Economic Effects of Metallic
Corrosion in the U.S. Part 1 - Report to the Congress (NBS Special
Pub. 511-1) Washington, D.C., May 1978.
U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Administration. Office of
Standards Development. Inflation Impact and Analysis of the Proposed
Standard for Coke Oven Emissions, 29CFR1910.1029. Washington, D.C.,
February 27, 1976.
Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc. The Recreation Benefits
of Water Quality Improvement: Analysis of Day Trips in an Urban
Setting. Cambridge, MA, December 1, 1975.
Van Haut, H. Die Analyse von Schwefeldiorydwerkungen auf Planzen in
Laboratoriumsversuch. Laboratory Experiments on the Effects of S09 on
Plants. Staub 21:52-56, 1961.
Vars, Charles R. and Gary W. Sorenson. Study of the Economic Effects
of Changes in Air Quality. Corvallis, OR, Oregon State University,
Air Resources Center, June 1972.
Waddell, Thomas E. The Economic Damages of Air Pollution. Research
Triangle Park, NC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, May 1974.
11-29
-------
Watson, William D. and John A. Jaksch. Air Pollution: Household
Soiling and Consumer Welfare Losses, unpublished paper, April 1980.
Webster, C.C. The Effects of Air Pollution on Plants and Soil.
London, Agricultural Research Council, 1967.
Weinstein, L.H., et: al. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide on the Incidence and
Severity of Bean Rust and Early Blight of Tomato. Environmental
Pollution 9:145-155, 1975.
Whittemore, Alice. Mathematical Models of Cancer and Their Use in
Risk Assessment. Statistics and Environmental Factors in Health:
Technical Report No. 27. Philadelphia, SIAM Institute for Mathematics
and Society, August 1979.
. Air Pollution and Respiratory Disease. Statistics and
Environmental Factors in Health: Technical Report No. 38. New
Canaan, CT. SIAM Institute for Mathematics and Society, July 1980.
Wieand, Kenneth F. Air Pollution and Property Values: A Study of the
St. Louis Area. Journal of Regional Science 13:91-95, 1973.
Williams, M.D., E. Treiman and M. Wecksung. Plume Blight Visibility
Modeling with a Simulated Photograph Technique, paper presented at the
Air Pollution Control Association Specialty Conference on Visibility,
Denver, November 27-28, 1979 in Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association 30:131-134, 1980.
Williamson, Samuel J. Fundamentals of Air Pollution. Reading, MA,
Addison-Wesley, 1973.
Woodcock, Kenneth R. A Model for Regional Air Pollution Cost/Benefit
Analysis, prepared for the Air Pollution Control Office (NTIS PB-202
353). McLean, VA, TRW Systems Group, May 1971.
Zerbe, Robert, Jr. The Economics of Air Pollution: A Cost Benefit
Approach. Toronto, Ontario Department of Public Health, 1969.
Zimmerman, P.W. and W. Crocker. Toxicity of Air Containing Sulfur
Dioxide Gas. Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 6:445-470, 1954.
US. Environment?! Protection Agency,
Region V, L\w?:
------- |